Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Cycling

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of bicycling and the Government's policy towards it. It is a particularly apt time to do so, because National Bike Week starts on Saturday. I would like to highlight that event, and I welcome its sponsorship by Hovis. I hope that as many people as possible—both in the House and in the country—take note of an event designed to highlight bicycling and to make bicycling a more acceptable means of transport. The Cycling Public Affairs Group is holding a reception this afternoon in the House of Commons to highlight the question of bicycling to the representatives of the nation.
I bicycle around London, and while I should say that I also drive from time to time, bicycling is the quickest way of getting around London. We should realise that bicycling is no longer a fringe pursuit—if, indeed, it ever was—and I do not see myself as a fringe person. I bicycle in a suit, and I do not own a pair of lycra shorts.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Shame!

Mr. Robathan: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to see me in a pair of lycra shorts—I hope not.
I am the chairman of the all-party cycling group because I believe that cycling is a part, but only a part, of improving the quality of life and of our urban environment. Cycling can play a part in solving the real problems with transport and traffic in this country. In the three years that I have been a Member, there has been a shift in attitudes towards transport, roads, general traffic policy and cycling. I hope this morning to help that shift of attitudes, because attitudes are the key.
From the age of 13 to 17, I bicycled to school every day. Many people did that, and it was an acceptable way of getting to school. I read in the Leicester Mercury on Friday one man's opinion of bicycling. He said:
I make my personal choice—a car—as it is comfortable and keeps me dry and I don't arrive all sweating and smelly … I have to expend less energy too and arrive fresh at my destination without the pains I would suffer cycling…you keep your bike and I'll keep my car.
That is entirely up to him, and I have no grudge against car owners—indeed, I am a car user myself. But there has been a change from believing that cyclists are a bit loony towards believing that cycling is a sensible way of getting about.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for obtaining this debate, and

for the positive way in which he is suggesting that we ought to promote cycling and walking as positive choices for those who have access to cars. Does my hon. Friend welcome the way in which the RAC and the AA have started to take the interests of cyclists into account, as well as representing other road users?

Mr. Robathan: I welcome my hon. Friend's point. As a member of the AA, I found it distressing that the AA seemed to think that cyclists and motorists cannot get on. Cycling is a part of transport, not a way-out activity for people in lycra shorts.
Cycling is viewed by some—such as the correspondent of the Leicester Mercury—as a fringe activity for the poor, but just because someone is on a bicycle does not mean that he is to be pitied because he cannot afford a car. It must be understood that cycling is an excellent and cheap way of getting around, and it is particularly suitable if one does not have a car. It is also a good way for a car owner who wishes not to use his car in order to save money. It must be got across that having a car does not mean that a person has to use it. Cycling is now coming in from the cold, but it has a long way to go.
At a reception yesterday, somebody told me that his child's school had just knocked down the bicycle sheds. Although bicycle sheds have many uses besides sheltering bicycles, it is essential that schools take the view that cycling is a sensible way for their pupils to get to school. When I was a young boy, I cycled to school. They may not have been halcyon days, but there was certainly much less traffic and less danger of being knocked down, the air was cleaner, there was much less noise, and traffic was slower, so those days had something to recommend them.
I welcome the policy statement issued by the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), last June, which was a step in the right direction. It contained much talk of perception, which is the key. I hope that this debate will assist in changing people's perception of cycling. I also welcome the fact that a number of hon. Members are present this morning. It is a good turnout for an Adjournment debate, especially so early in the morning. It shows the rising interest in cycling in this place.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my very fit and young hon. Friend for giving way. As a rather timid and exhausted cyclist, I find that London is full of mountains. What really puts me off cycling are the dangers. Is my hon. Friend aware that, every year, some 25,000 cyclists are injured on the roads and, of that number, 200 are killed? That is a considerable risk factor. Does he agree that much more effort must go into teaching other road users how to respect cyclists?

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point. I shall come to the dangers of cycling in a minute. My hon. Friend is not unfit and London is not entirely full of mountains, although the Haymarket and St. James's seem mountainous as one ascends on a bicycle.
My great aunt used to live outside Hereford, which is pretty hilly. She used to cycle into Hereford—a distance of five miles each way—every day until she was well into her sixties.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that Lower Regent street goes uphill, whereas Haymarket goes downhill. They are one-way streets.

Mr. Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend for his geography lesson. I certainly do not go the wrong way down one-way streets.
Why should cycling be such an important part of our transport policy? The first, and perhaps most important, reason is to reduce congestion. Outside this place even now, the traffic is stopped in Parliament square, and all the way along the Embankment, cars are bumper to bumper as people try to get to work. Some 70 per cent. of journeys made in urban areas are less than five miles. Cycling is a practical way to get around, because, instead of sitting in a traffic jam, one can move as fast as the traffic in central London, or even central Leicester just outside my constituency, and arrive at one's destination relatively quickly and, hopefully, safely.
The second reason is to reduce environmental pollution, which is closely linked to congestion. Among its many other recommendations, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended that a target should be set to increase cycle use to 10 per cent. of urban journeys in the next 10 years—a fourfold increase. I welcome that ambitious start.

Lady Olga Maitland: I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way so generously. On environmental pollution, has he noticed that many cyclists in London wear face masks to protect themselves from gassy fumes? It is impossible to remove all the fumes in the city right away. Does he agree that cyclists are in danger of exposing themselves to the very fumes that they should be protected from?

Mr. Robathan: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. It can be extremely unpleasant to breathe in the particles that have been coughed out by dirty taxis and buses, and the carbon monoxide from motor cars. However, notwithstanding what cyclists may taste, they are in a much better position than those who sit in a small box on four wheels where the air circulates less quickly. Doctors confirm that people are better off on bicycles than in cars if they want to avoid pollution.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: That is an important point. We all know that car drivers and cyclists breathe the same air. If car drivers want to exclude the fumes they generate, they should wear the same masks as cyclists.

Mr. Robathan: People should take that fact on board. Although cyclists wear masks, they are in less danger than people in cars.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that it wants to reduce all urban journeys by car by 10 per cent. by the year 2020. We should all try to achieve that. Cycling can be only part of the solution. It is alleged that environmental pollution is causing a great increase in asthma. That must concern us all, especially those with young children who have asthma. Cycling can bring health benefits in that respect. We are in danger of becoming a nation of couch potatoes who watch television and sit in those boxes on four wheels getting fat eating crisps or chocolate. Cycling has a role to play in the health and fitness of the nation.
The fourth benefit of cycling is recreation. Cycling has come a long way in that respect, too. Bicycles can now be hired around Rutland Water. One can cycle around my constituency along the rolling lanes of Leicestershire on any weekend and find people cycling for recreation either

on their own or with their families. An excellent scheme, SUSTRANS, which the Minister supports, aims to set up a safe, segregated cycle way all the way from Inverness to Dover—and beyond in the future. We would all wish to support that.
Following this debate, I hope to see further Government progress. I hope that the Minister will talk about a national cycling strategy. Should he be thinking of devising such a strategy, I should like to make a few suggestions.
My first suggestion is on safety, which was mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). The greatest deterrent to people cycling in an urban environment and to parents allowing their children to cycle to school is the danger. A young cousin of mine was killed by a lorry on Clapham common some five years ago at 7 am; my brother has been knocked off his bicycle on several occasions; and I have had many close squeezes. I was hit by a car outside my office in Westminster.
The Cycling Safety Bill, which I introduced two years ago, would have led to a charge of dangerous driving being brought against a motorist who, through his or her own fault, struck a cyclist. I commend such a legislative measure to my hon. Friend the Minister. Last year, Camden and Islington health authority issued an interesting report on lorries, which showed that, in inner London, a heavy goods vehicle is 30 times more likely to kill a cyclist than a car in relation to traffic volume. That is an amazing statistic. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the question of heavy goods vehicles in the urban environment.
Some of the best measures would be traffic restraint, segregation, traffic calming and reducing speed in the urban environment. As someone who is always late for everything and always trying to reach my destination five minutes ago, I accept that we cannot use our cars as fast as we are able where there are cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable road users.
My second suggestion to my hon. Friend is that of security. The risk of returning to one's bicycle and finding that it is no longer there is another major deterrent to cycling. We need better facilities. This problem was noted in the policy statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury ( Mr. Key) last year but I urge the Minister to work towards encouraging local government to provide better facilities.
I also urge him to speak to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, as I have twice returned to my bicycle, which was legally left in London, to find it moved because the Metropolitan Police Commissioner believes that bicycles will explode. It is possible to get Semtex down the crossbar of a bicycle—in Crossmaglen, a bicycle was found with its crossbar packed full of high explosives—but a bicycle can be effectively used as a bomb only if it is carrying a package. That is the same as with any package sitting in the street or anywhere else.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to stop the Metropolitan Police Commissioner moving everyone's bicycles on, so that the left hand and the right hand of local government policy each knows what the other doing.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Not only do the police move bicycles; there is a problem in parking bicycles. Is my hon. Friend aware that the staff of Government buildings are hostile towards Members of


Parliament who ride bicycles, considering that it lowers the tone of the building? Does he agree that all Government Departments should have cycle bays so that visitors can arrive as well as staff? I am sure that the Minister will say something helpful, but does my hon. Friend agree that such bays are needed?

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is absolutely right. When I visit Government Departments, sometimes people look at me aghast, and sometimes, if I telephone in advance, they will kindly allow me to put my bicycle behind a desk. At the Department of Health, I regret to say, I was consigned down a lift with my bicycle into a back room miles from anywhere. I might just as well have walked from the House; it would have been quicker.

Mr. Bottomley: You should have done.

Mr. Robathan: Well, I thought that the bicycle was helpful at the time.
I tabled a series of questions last year to encourage Government Departments to set an example. If they talk about encouraging bicycling, they must set an example and provide space for bicycles. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
That brings me to my next recommendation, which is that we should have more user-friendly employers. Parking for cyclists is important, but—as was recognised in a policy statement in June 1994—so are showers. If one has bicycled five or six miles into work, one may have worked up a slight amount of perspiration—if my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will excuse me.

Mr. Denis MacShane: She merely glows.

Mr. Robathan: Indeed, she merely glows.

Mr. MacShane: All the time.

Mr. Robathan: However, it is important that there is the facility for employees to wash and get changed when they reach work. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go further to encourage such facilities.
My fourth argument relates to a subject that I have mentioned. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will discuss with the Department for Education encouraging children to bicycle to school, as they did once. It is ludicrous that, at 8.30 or 9 o'clock in the morning, our roads are jammed with people driving one or two miles, taking their children to school. I know that there is another safety factor, regrettable as it may be, concerning the possibility of children being abducted, but, statistically, that is very much more in people's perception than it is in reality. If more children bicycled, there would be a much smaller chance of their being abducted, and they would be safer on the roads.
Bike sheds, schools' attitudes and local education authorities' attitudes are important, but so are the mobility, independence and health of a child. Too many children are becoming dependent on being driven to school. That is surely not the way to develop independent and healthy minds.

Mr. David Nicholson: Encouraging schoolchildren to cycle to school is the key, because it is at that stage in life that one gets into the habit of cycling, if one is ever going to. An all-party study in Taunton

Deane in my constituency brought up the issues of safety on the roads. Abduction was mentioned, and other factors. At a time when traffic is becoming more and more congested, my hon. Friend makes a vital argument.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, because I think that is a way in which we can make a real difference by means of Government policy, not any great legislation.
Mentioning children and bicycling and the health of children leads me to my further recommendation. I understand—I hope that the Minister will discuss this—that a physical activity task force is being set up. Bicycling can play a major part in health. It is aerobic, therapeutic and non-polluting. We must make strides to encourage people to consider cycling as a sensible, good way of taking exercise—something which I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would encourage.

Mr. Heald: I do not think that my hon. Friend has discussed the leisure aspects of bicycling.

Mr. Robathan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heald: Well, I wanted to ask my hon. Friend about a specific matter. In many parts of the country now, there are cycle routes, such as at Grafham water and Rutland water. In Sussex, there is a cycleway between Polegate and Hailsham, which is being expanded. Does my hon. Friend envisage a role for the Millenium Commission in providing funding to organisations that want to set up routes of that type, and does he feel that that might improve the leisure aspect of bicycling?

Mr. Robathan: That is an excellent idea, which I hope the Millennium Commission will consider carefully. As recently as last week, in the recess before rushing back for the debate last Wednesday, I walked along something called the Tarka trail in west Devon, which is, similarly, set up on an old railway line—I would rather that it was still a railway line, to be honest—where people walk and bicycle and hire bicycles. That is a growing leisure activity.
Finally, I recommend to the Minister that targets be introduced. I suggest that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is being over-ambitious. I recommend that we consider doubling the number of cycle journeys in the next 10 years by involving local authorities, which are the local transport managers, and applying Government policy seriously.
All those recommendations help to change attitudes. Cyclists continue to be deprived. I read continually, in my local Leicester Mercury, of people saying, "I saw a cyclist on the pavement, and he nearly knocked me down." I have, as a boy of about 16, hit a pedestrian when the pedestrian ran out into the street at school, chasing another boy. Let me assure the House that the pedestrian was fine, although he was half my size. I bounced heavily on the ground, ruined my suit and received several big grazes. Any cyclist has similar tales to tell.
I decry those cyclists who break the law by not using lights, by bicycling on the pavements and so on. They may feel that they have good reason, but I do not accept it. Of course it is wrong to break the law, but that does not invalidate the need for more bicycling. We must change the perception against bicycling.
Two years ago, when I made my cycling safety speech, an hon. Friend said—albeit in jest—"I would get all cyclists off the road." I am afraid that that is an underlying feeling among many motorists who are held up by a couple of cyclists. They think, "Why are those two riding two abreast? Get them out of the road." We must change that perception, so that bicycling is accepted as the best way, in the urban environment, to go swiftly for two or three miles.
As well as hitting the targets, we need further joint action by the Minister, with the Department for Education, the Department of Employment—for employer-friendly attitudes—the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment. We may even need further joint action with the Lord Chancellor's Department, because I notice that Sir Richard Scott is a bit of a cyclist, to introduce a topical note; with the Department of Trade and Industry, where Howard Davies of the Confederation of British Industry is a bit of a cyclist; and with the Cabinet Office, because Sir Robin Butler is also a bit of a cyclist.

Mr. Heald: And the House of Lords—Lord Tebbit.

Mr. Robathan: Indeed, in the House of Lords; Lord Tebbit has made some very apt comments about bicycles.
In Denmark, nine times more cycle journeys are made, and it is 10 times safer to bicycle, than in this country. More cycling will make for cleaner, clearer roads, and it will mean that motorists are used to cyclists and their attention is gained by cyclists, so that they do not come round a corner and not expect to see one. If there is more cycling, it will become safer. It will become self-fulfilling.
I call for no legislation, except perhaps introducing a cyclists safety measure, such as I have suggested, in the next Road Traffic Act. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply.
I recently noticed my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary walking to his office in Marsham street. I note that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently taken to walking to Parliament for Prime Minister's questions. That is common sense and should not be remarked on, because it is quicker than taking a car.
Cycling is only part of the process. At the moment, traffic jams Parliament square. I look forward to Parliament square being semi-pedestrianised, when there are few cars, cleaner buses, perhaps horses, a lot of pedestrians—

Lady Olga Maitland: Horses?

Mr. Robathan: Indeed; horses are very clean, and an attractive means of transport. There will also be more cyclists. I believe that that will happen in about 20 years; the sooner the better, because the quality of life of the nation will be improved if there is more cycling.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to be able to support the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), not only in the Chamber, but as vice-chairman of the all-party cycling group.
This is an all-party occasion up to a point, and if I bring other matters into the debate, I am sure that no parliamentarians will blame me for doing so. Although

there has been plenty of support for cycling from Conservative Members, the Government have done certain things, and they might do certain things that might make things rather better.
My contribution could be described as a little more plebian than that of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), whose remarks I support. I have been cycling in London continually for 50 years. I have had the privilege of being able to cycle to work in London for the past 40 years—for probably 80 to 90 per cent. of my journeys.
I decided to reveal today that, for the past 25 years, as a Member of the House I have cycled not much less than 100,000 miles, most of which have been in London, with a proportion in rural areas in the holidays. I try to match precept with practice, and the practical with the legal. The work of organisations such as the Cyclists Touring Club, of which I have been a member for many years, the Youth Hostels Association and the London Cycling Campaign, which has official support, has been helpful.
As I was travelling in this morning, I took a count—in the course of about five miles, I saw 55 cyclists awheel, apart from several hundred cycles at the side of the road. Cycling is an increasingly important mode of transport in the capital, even on a dull day. I am not convinced by some of the statistics that suggest that there has been a reduction in cycling nationally. In London, particularly in the past 10 or 12 years, the numbers awheel seem to have been increasing.

Mr. Steen: I think that the hon. Gentleman's work for cycling should be recognised by the House. As long as I have been a cyclist—20 years—the hon. Gentleman has always been on two wheels, whatever the weather, and has made a great contribution to the cycling debate.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of cyclists coming into London alone has reached about 130,000 a day? In view of that, does he not believe that a much more serious contribution should be made by the Government to provide for those 130,000 cyclists who come in and out of the capital?

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is right, but cyclists do not just come in and out of London: they travel around it. Short journeys by bicycle can easily be undertaken, even in central London, if certain routes are used. The subject should be taken up by the boroughs. I am glad to see that one inter-borough organisation, the Association of London Government, has been established. It may be able to get the London cycle network going faster.
Road surfaces in London are dangerous; the number of holes is distinctly unpleasant. That safety problem should be looked at as a priority. I also commend some of the individual initiatives that have been taken. There is talk of advanced stop lines for cyclists. One of the hazardous places for cyclists is when they turn left at crossroads—where vehicles and cyclists turn left together. We do not necessarily need to change the lights or make expensive electrical changes, but we could try pushing the white stop line back a few feet and ensuring that there is an advanced stop line for cyclists on the near side.
There is an active cycling policy, with a full-time cycling officer, in the borough of Newham. With me, Friends of the Earth have undertaken pioneering rides. The Department of Transport was asked to send a


representative along one day. He emerged from a car with a portable cycle, and promptly skidded and fell on the A13. It turned out that the borough was not directly responsible for the maintenance and road sweeping of the A13; the borough was paid to sweep the road twice a year by the Department of Transport. The Department's official suffered from his own departmental policy.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way, as many people wish to speak and the hon. Lady has already contributed. I must press on.

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I shall give way for the last time.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that time is precious. He has made an important point about the difficulties faced by cyclists turning left. Does he agree that further studies should also be made into the problems involved in cyclists approaching junctions, roundabouts and crossroads, as three quarters of all accidents happen at those very places?

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for endorsing precisely what I was saying.
I shall now hasten on to a less pleasing subject, to which the Opposition and the Government may take slightly different approaches: precept and practice. Earlier in the week, I became aware that, if someone wished to leave a bicycle in Whitehall outside any Government office, he would encounter notices stating that the bicycle would be taken away. That matter was given some publicity.
I hope that Westminster city council or the Government will ensure that visitors to this place—those who may not officially be present in the Chamber—who wish to come by cycle can, with relative ease, find a place to leave their bicycle. Perhaps there could be signposts showing the places for leaving bicycles instead of the prohibitive signs.
Cyclists should be able to leave their bicycle and walk the last 100 yards, perhaps under supervision. It is an anomaly that we should be discussing this important topic for an hour and a half, but that, if someone wants to come to the debate, he or she is virtually prohibited from leaving their cycle outside. I am glad to see that the Minister for Transport in London takes that point.
An even bigger anomaly is the Government's failure to provide adequate facilities for taking cycles on trains. I do not think that cycles, particularly modern ones, are much heavier than a normal suitcase, and they cannot add to the cost of train travel. The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), whose selection to contest the seat was not entirely unconnected with his cycling activities—the previous occupant of that seat also indulged in that mode of transport—

Mr. MacShane: Name him.

Mr. Spearing: The seat disappeared through boundary changes.
In co-operation with the Cyclists Touring Club, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton introduced a wonderful arrangement on British Rail, whereby virtually any train on any day could take a cycle if there was room. In those days, the luggage compartments were larger than they are now. Network SouthEast still continues with that policy, except

in the rush hour. It is a useful policy, but elsewhere things are getting worse. Matters are even worse as a result of the recent policies of Her Majesty's Government in respect of different parts of the railway network.
Different routes have different rules and different times, most of which are ridiculous. Cross-country trains, which were designed by British Rail, can officially carry just one bicycle on a first come, first served basis. Passengers do not take their bicycles, because they know that someone further up the line may have placed a bicycle on the train already. That is a terrible disincentive, particularly for those in rural areas, to use trains and bicycles—the combination of which is an economical form of transport and a viable alternative to motoring. It is the sort of thing that I am sure those in rural Leicestershire would welcome.
Such a policy must be considered. Present legislation and the regulator clearly do not require such facilities at present, so perhaps the hon. Member for Blaby, the Opposition or someone with cross-party support will introduce an appropriate private Member's Bill. I will not say that it would be successful—it might be objected to at 2.30 pm one Friday—but, as A. P. Herbert found, the threat of legislation sometimes moves Governments to action before legislation is drafted and laid. I hope that I am being sufficiently constructive and not too controversial.
The subject involves more than simply the trains themselves; we must consider the terminals. One used to be able to leave a bicycle at a London terminal, go off and return later. I went to Paris on an official duty not long ago. I thought that I should get to Waterloo quickly from here, and did so in just four minutes.
When I arrived, I found that the left luggage facilities had not only been let out to a contractor and were closed at 9 pm, after the train from Paris returned, but there was a £3 charge. If one does not return before 9 pm, which I did not, the charge is £6—the cycle is removed. I understand from the London Cycling Campaign that one can leave a bicycle there and lock it up if one knows where to leave it.
Such facilities should exist, but they are not as accessible as they should be in many terminals. The fee of £3 a day for leaving a bicycle can mount up if one is taking a two-day journey, and it seems excessive to have to pay £3 to take it on the train. There should be some places, as there are at King's Cross, to leave bicycles in relative security, locked up to a Sheffield bar or a cycle rank. I commend that thought to British Rail. If more cyclists travelled by train, British Rail would collect more money, as the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said when he introduced the successful scheme.
That excellent magazine The Big Issue addressed the question of cyclist safety recently when one of the people associated with the publication, Miss Kate De Pulford, died while riding a cycle on London roads. Its edition of 22 May pointed out the problems, to which the hon. Member for Blaby has alluded, of heavy goods vehicles, and the difficulties for cyclists who wish to turn left at intersections. The magazine stated that 60 per cent. of cycle accidents in inner London were related to those two factors.
The number of cyclists who died as a result of accidents involving cars and heavy goods vehicles were about the same—although, as the hon. Gentleman said, the ratio of cars to heavy goods vehicles is 30:1. The British Medical Journal of 11 June 1994 contains a paper written by Dr. Mark McCarthy, who is from the health authority mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It points to the awkward figure of 58 per cent. for that type of accident.
I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to debate these matters today. I look forward to further constructive debate on the subject, and I hope that we will see common-sense, across-the-board, pro bono publico, pro-cyclist legislation and administrative action from Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I am somewhat humbled by the fact that I am surrounded by right hon. and hon. Members who are clearly much fitter than I, and much more practically dedicated to cycling. However, I suspect that my experience is likely to be more typical of that of most of the population.
As a child, I was a very keen cyclist. I found it an exhilarating form of exercise, as well as the only means of travelling swiftly over considerable distances. However, as an adult, I found myself in a situation that is the reverse of the smoker's dilemma: although I wished to continue, I virtually gave it up.
I gave up cycling, firstly, because of the risk of accident; secondly, because of the unpleasant experience of cycling amidst thick traffic, with the fumes, noise and hassle of motor cars; and, finally, because, although I was attracted to cycling, it clearly was not always the swiftest or the most convenient way of travelling moderate distances.
Nevertheless, I endorse very strongly all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in introducing the debate today, and by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We should not be too starry-eyed about the cycle replacing other means of transport. I cannot see the 15,000 commuters in my constituency of Beckenham revving up their cycles and racing into London—although I would love to see it—particularly when they are dressed in their business clothes. However, the cycle is an important mode of transport.
There is no doubt that there is public pressure to improve cycling facilities. I received a letter a few weeks ago from a constituent, Patricia Ewing, who is living temporarily in the Netherlands. She writes:
Although this is one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, our suburban area feels far less congested than Bromley. Our quality of life is enormously enhanced by the extensive use of bicycles, made possible by excellent cycle tracks and widespread traffic-slowing mechanisms. My heart truly sinks at the thought of returning to the fume-laden scrum of cars around our local school in Bromley".
She is quite right, and she reflects the views that have been expressed to me by many people who have not lived elsewhere where more cycling facilities are available. I strongly endorse the views that Ms Ewing expresses in her letter.
I turn to the problems faced by children who ride bicycles. My children are keen to cycle. My 11-year-old daughter would dearly love to have a bicycle, and I have been put in the very difficult position of having to refuse her request, simply because I cannot risk allowing my daughter to cycle around the streets of Beckenham. I live on a main road where the traffic situation is extremely dangerous, and I must deprive my daughter of an experience that I enjoyed as a child and which she would

desperately like to try. I would like to see measures introduced to make cycling safer and more readily accessible to children like my daughter.
The borough of Bromley does a great deal of work in the road safety area. Last year, it taught cycle proficiency to 2,000 children, which is more than any other London borough. Another borough instructed the second largest group, of 1,200 children, in the same period. Bromley is dedicated to heightening safety consciousness among cyclists. According to the latest figures, 122 accidents per year involve cycles. I regret that our road safety officer, Scott Pickering, has decided to emigrate to Australia, and is leaving the country on Friday. No doubt he will find that cycling is much safer in Australia, although I suspect that that is not his prime reason for moving there.
It is important to try to overcome the risk of cycle accidents in urban areas. Bromley has taken steps in this area, but I should like to see its work expand. At present, three cycle routes traverse the borough, but clearly many more are needed. They are usually arrangements that mix cycles and other traffic.
Although that is helpful, it is a second-best arrangement, as, ideally, one should have dedicated cycle routes. Bicycles and motor vehicles, particularly lorries, do not mix well on our roads, especially when lorries and cars are speeding. Although it is important to explore the use of more cycle routes, I should like to see dedicated cycle routes constructed wherever possible.
I have mentioned speed: it is extremely important for road safety generally, but particularly for cyclists, that further action be taken to control the speed of motor vehicles. Speed causes many vehicle accidents and puts cyclists and pedestrians at risk. Firm action must be taken in that area.
As has already been said, it may be possible to introduce other traffic management schemes that will help cyclists at road junctions, crossings and so on. I know of three road junctions in Bromley where separate measures are in place which give cyclists preferential and protected treatment. I would like to see those schemes extended. One set of traffic lights has a specific cycle phase, and I would like that arrangement to be made more widely available.
The borough is now looking at taking specific action to try to deal with the risk that lorries pose for cyclists. Because of their sheer size, lorries which are crammed on narrow roads must drive very close to the pavement, and they pose particular problems for cyclists. I hope that action will be taken to deal with that problem.
Some steps have been taken to allow cyclists to share routes with pedestrians. I welcome the introduction of those dedicated routes, and I think that we can make considerable progress by mixing cycles and pedestrians. However, it is an extremely sensitive issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby talked about pavements. A dispute is presently going on in my borough as to whether certain pavements should be made available to cyclists, particularly young cyclists. Reasonable arguments are advanced on both sides. Some say that it is much safer for children to ride their bicycles on pavements than on the roads, but pedestrians—especially elderly pedestrians—believe that young cyclists pose an immediate safety risk to pedestrians.
Cyclists cannot win: if they ride on the pavement, they are accused of presenting a risk to pedestrians; if they ride on the road, they are at risk from cars and lorries.
I should like to see more studies on the mix of cycles and pedestrians. It is possible that means could be devised to enable that mix to be extended in some areas by the possibility either of cordoning off part of a pavement, if it is particularly wide, or the use of some pavements for mixed purposes—perhaps pavements that do not run alongside drives and houses. That is worth examining. Although I would not want to prejudge the result of such examination, it could provide a possible way forward.

Mr. Robathan: One of the problems with cycle lanes that cyclists identify very quickly is that people park in them. They then become worse than useless, as one has to pull out of the cycle lane into the main stream. Perhaps the Government should consider that.

Mr. Merchant: I quite agree. That is one reason why I am suggesting that we should examine the possibility of cycle lanes being included on wide pavements, or an extension of the mix to which I referred, with shared facilities, as cycle lanes on the side of roads pose a risk, particularly if the roads are busy. There is no simple solution to the problem, particularly in heavily built-up urban areas with high levels of traffic.
All those different measures are producing benefit. If they are extended, more thought is given to them and further studies are carried out, we shall find a way forward to encourage cycling by making it safer and by raising the importance of the issue in the public consciousness and taking steps to control the overwhelming priority that at present seems to be given to cars and lorries on our urban roads, which often were once quiet enough to enable cyclists to use them safely, but now regrettably are not.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), not just on achieving this morning's debate, which is of great value, but for the persistent and consistent way in which he has advanced the cause of cyclists. I know that hon. Members present on both sides of the House share that objective, and have done great work.
I was tempted to say that a funny thing happened to me on the way to the House this morning, and in a sense it did. I walked along the embankment, my usual way to work. I do not cycle, as it is a relatively short journey and I find it easier to walk, although I have cycled in the past and found the facilities as daunting as other hon. Members clearly do.
As I walked along, I saw a new RAC traffic sign saying:
London at War until 7 January 1996".
What surprised me was not that London was at war, but that the RAC knew that the war would end on 7 January 1996. We are discussing a permanent and difficult conflict between different types of transport usage. Sadly, the cyclist is all too often squeezed between other much more powerful interests.
It is symbolic when, all too often, we see the public transport vehicle and the car, and the poor old cyclist in between. That is a symbol of precisely what has happened as the volume of traffic has increased, not just in London, but in all our major cities since the war.
There have also been several different conflicting political pressures. There was a period when transport planning was dominated by the municipal bus barons. I

worked with the bus industry, and I respect the talents and achievements of those big men who dominated public transport for many years. However, their interests were primarily in trying to make the public transport system work.
Then we had a new era, and a new breed of public transport planners, who were obsessed with making the car move from A to B much faster.
In my planning and architectural days, I recall reading that monumental and extremely important seminal work, "Traffic in Towns" by Colin Buchanan. He warned what would happen if London and major cities were simply rebuilt to accommodate all the private vehicles that wished to use their streets. His report was intended to be an awful warning, but some of those who were then responsible for transport planning in our cities took it at as a blueprint of what was needed to accommodate cars in our cities—precisely what Professor Buchanan was trying to avoid. Between those two strong and powerful interests came the poor old cyclist, and to some extent the pedestrian.
The pedestrian, however, has survived better than the cyclist in the past few decades, because pedestrianisation took off in the 1960s and 1970s and to some extent the momentum has been maintained under successive Governments since. Yet the cyclist is still squeezed between public and private transport interests.
I have two quotations. The first is from John Grimshaw, the director of SUSTRANS. He said recently:
Although the bicycle is perhaps the ideal vehicle for today's small, crowded and polluted planet, it is dangerous and unpleasant to cycle on today's heavily trafficked roads.
That is a good summary from someone who obviously knows precisely what he is talking about.
The Minister for Transport in London, who is in his place, said on 3 April in answer to the hon. Member for Blaby:
Cycling is environmentally sound and healthy and is a thoroughly desirable form of transport, but most people do not exactly relish the prospect of challenge a 40 ft articulated lorry for priority on the road."—[Official Report, 3 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1380.]
That is exactly right.
Let us not fool ourselves that other countries all over the world suffer the same problem and have not found solutions. Some of them have. We have much to learn from Freiberg on the edge of the Black Forest, where, according to an excellent assessment of the problem by the Glasgow Herald recently:
a combination of cyclepaths and new trams have swept the city centre almost free of traffic in little more than a decade.
I was recently in Amsterdam, where, outside the central station, there is a vast array of cycle racks—all safe, properly supervised and secure. Of course, as a result, the mix of effective longer-distance public transport by rail and short-distance cycle journeys is working extremely well.
We all expect London to be the crux of the problem, and it is significant that so many right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in and outside London are here today, and that the debate is likely to concentrate on London.
I raise two points about London. First, the Minister announced that the £3 million will be made available for the 1,000-mile cycle track that is intended for greater London. That sounds fine, but how much will that buy?

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): So that we can all save time, I should explain that the £3 million is not strictly for the 1,000-mile cycleway, as that is already in existence. It has been allocated to a much broader project, and is merely the money to finance the planning stage. In order that we can get on, as I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, I say now that, frankly, the eventual cost is likely to be many times more than that. I am quite well aware of that, and have made it clear that we want to fund it.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister, and accept what he says. I wanted to use the £3 million as a litmus test of how much was available.
According to the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the current cost of a two-way 3 m wide cycle lane on one side of an average road is £400,000 per mile. That is a huge sum. Perhaps the noughts are wrong, or maybe Hansard got it wrong—perhaps the Minister will tell us later—but if it is really £400,000, are we putting the money in the right place?
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) that, for a whole series of reasons—parking was mentioned, and conflicts with other traffic and turning will always be difficult—the cycle lane beside the main road will never be as satisfactory as the dedicated route, whether or not it is in conjunction with a pedestrian route.
Most continental cities have moved away from the cycle lane to the dedicated track. If we are talking about such huge sums—perhaps in London we are—we have to think more seriously about getting good value for money. I re-emphasise the sum of £3 million buying only 7.5 miles towards the 1,000 mile cycleway. I am only using that £3 million as a test of what can be bought for a comparatively modest sum.
Who will take the initiative and co-ordinate? There seems to be some conflict. Some London boroughs have been much more imaginative and innovative than others. Will they be allowed to get on with it and have the resources, or will they find that they are increasingly constrained by Ministry policy or funding restrictions?
The Minister recently referred to the
power for the Secretary of State to designate a coherent network across London and to ensure co-ordinated implementation of effective measures."—[Official Report, 18 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 610.]
There is no use having such commitment without money. The Minister told the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) that it is up to local authorities to co-ordinate implementation.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will say where in London he expects initiatives to originate. Who will make the push? Will it be his Department or London boroughs? Who will decide how to set initiatives in motion? We do not want initiatives always to follow new road schemes, because the prime need may be in areas where no road improvements are intended.
In other parts of the country, exceptions are much more evident than the rule. There is an exceptional situation in Wadebridge in my constituency, which is fortunate enough to be halfway along the Camel Trail between Bodmin and Padstow—an old railway line used to run right through Wadebridge.
As a result of a bypass and an enhancement scheme, Wadebridge has incorporated facilities for cyclists, but no other town in Cornwall or Devon has anything like that provision—as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are well aware. That is true of most counties in England, Scotland and Wales. In those circumstances, we must find new mechanisms, and they must get financial backing. We are grateful for the work of the cyclists public affairs group and its identification of the need to incorporate public passenger transport provision for cyclists, which is of critical importance.
In the current year, only £6 million is being used specifically to promote cycling and cyclists' activities, which is a tiny percentage of the total transport budget. For the reasons that hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber have advanced this morning, it is extremely important to address the problem. Before the right formula and the right amount of money are found, a change of attitude must be achieved. We must not send out a signal that the Government and Parliament are only paying lip service to the need for increased resources, priority and attention. We should be determined to achieve a real change of gear.

Mr. Anthony Steen: One understands why the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke with such feeling. His party identifies with cyclists squashed between the public sector that is the Labour party and the private sector that is the Conservative party.
Every speech in the House must have a preface in which one declares one's interests. I declare first an interest in cycling and that I am vice-president of the Cyclists Touring Club—and receive a 10 per cent. discount on bed and breakfast as a result. I also have a British-built bicycle. I used to have one that was made in eastern Europe, but the pedals fell off and the brakes did not work in wet weather. I was a founder member of the House of Commons all-party cycling club in the mid-70s, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on his skill in securing this debate.
I am a cycling addict. For 12 years, I was a 10-mile-a-day man—cycling to and from the House until it became too dangerous. Cycling in London has become dangerous. The road is like a battlefield, with every inch contested. The cyclist feels under ever-increasing pressure to be seen off the road. Constant attacks by lorries, buses and cars to see cyclists away has resulted in the new breed of the cyclist terrorist, who thinks that he owns the road. Such cyclists gesticulate, shout and kick one's car, believing that they have priority. The new cyclist terrorist believes that he has the moral high ground. In many ways, he is right.
While a free-for-all on the roads is the easiest option for public authorities, it is short-sighted and leads nowhere. If a cyclist can reach a city—and that is difficult enough by train because so few services now carry bicycles, such is


British Rails's hostility—the policy in cities should be public transport, pedestrians and cycling. There should be priorities, but there is none, which is why cyclists are on the rampage.
They used to be the most courteous and considerate road users and the least dangerous—one rarely hears of pedestrians being killed by cyclists. However, cyclists in cities are under such pressure that they cycle on pavements and through parks, and their terrorism is displayed by hostility to authority—cycling without lights at night and with no audible means of announcing their presence.
There is a huge criminal underworld in cycle theft. I had three bikes stolen near the Palace of Westminster in the past 10 years—cut from their chains. I am told that one of the most lucrative forms of theft requires only a van and a pair of cutters. One can earn £1,000 a morning cramming bicycles at £100 a piece into the back of a van.
Main roads should be cleared of parked cars. Every morning, too many cars flashing hazard lights obstruct bus, taxi and cycle lanes. I want to know what my hon. Friend the Minister will personally do about that. It is no use saying that it is enough to paint lines indicating red routes. The army of traffic wardens should concentrate on the main arterial routes in and out of London in the morning.
Although I would not impose a compulsory cycling proficiency test—more rules and regulations, which I am dead against—if cyclists are to be given more road space, they must be better behaved and more responsible. Paul Newman's book "Defensible Space" explains that human beings need so much space, and the problem on the roads today is that people have less and less space.
The cycling epidemic, and the mobility of the population, have led to environmental erosion on Dartmoor, and perhaps on Bodmin moor as well. More and more mountain bike riders are using the innermost parts of Dartmoor's wilderness. That national park authority is facing a serious problem between balancing the need to offer the park for leisure pursuits and preventing the irretrievable scarring of the landscape. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider that aspect.
As to dumping, Britain builds the best bicycles in the world, yet, with many other countries, it is giving vast sums of money through the World bank to the Chinese to build bicycles in the most modern factories at a knockdown price because of the subsidies that China enjoys, and its low labour costs. Those bicycles are then imported in bits, which means that there is no problem with tax or limit on the volume. They are subsequently assembled in this country and sold at one tenth the price of a British-built bike. We must be crazy. What other nation would fund a third world nation to undercut and reduce the profitability of its own industry?
I said that I would make a short speech, and it is rare for me to do that. I promised to complete my speech in seven minutes, and I have now been speaking for six. I have one more minute. I shall use part of that time to talk about the millenium-led bid by SUSTRANS—in other words, sustainable transport. I am told that I should declare an interest because I am the vice-president of that charity.
It is an imaginative and enterprising vision. A bid for £37 million has been made to the Millenium Fund to set up a cycle network from Plymouth to Inverness, to be

completed by the year 2005 if the project is given the go-ahead. It would be possible to cycle from the west country to London. It is a good idea. West country Members could all cycle to this place. It would be possible to cycle from London to Dover, Holyhead, Glasgow or Aberdeen. We would be pedalling for the millenium. What a magnificent vision. I hope that the Government will back the idea.
Finally, we should have bells back on bicycles. This place knows about bells. Once we hear a bell, we start running. People should have bells on bicycles. There should be an audible warning when a cyclist is coming up behind someone. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points that I have made at such lightning speed.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I join those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on obtaining the debate. I only wish that it were longer, because there is more to say. Would-be contributors to the debate may be able to make their speeches on another occasion.
I think that the Government are helping cyclists. An old friend of mine, Walter Reuther, went to the Nissan factory in Japan in 1960. He saw cars being made, but he saw also that the parking lot was full of bicycles. He said to his hosts, "You will never build an auto-economy on bicycle wages." Thanks to current Government policy, we are moving to bicycle wages in the United Kingdom. As a result, more and more people are moving to the bike.
I agree that it is important to get bikes off mountains and away from natural wildernesses, and on to our streets. I am an urban cyclist. I tuck my trousers into my socks. I do not wear one of those silly gas masks. However, cycling through the slow-motion gas chamber that is Tory London is an extremely worrying health prospect. It is extremely dangerous. I was knocked off my bike soon after becoming a Member. I was knocked down by a car opposite the St. Stephen's entrance. The driver did not stop. I understand that that is now the official practice of Conservative Members in SW postal districts.
Various policies have been advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Steen: Then give him a chance.

Mr. MacShane: I shall give him a chance. I promise the House that I shall make the shortest speech in this debate.
In addition to the various policies that have been advanced, we need more symbolic acts that would not necessarily cost a great deal of money. First, we need to increase parking places for bicycles in London generally and here in this place. In Palace Yard, there are only six places for Members' bicycles. That provision is deplorably insufficient.
We need to instruct those engaged in all new road-building projects to incorporate either bicycle lanes or the dedicated tracks to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred. When we visit other European countries, we see evidence that these schemes are workable if the orders are given.
It would be of great symbolic importance to the nation if Ministers were to decide that there could be a car-free day. "On your bike," said Lord Tebbit to the unemployed of the nation several years ago. I suggest that we should say, "On your bike," to Ministers, thereby encouraging them to set a good example.
I was impressed by those who talked about the problem of their children going to school on bikes. Living in Pimlico, I would not dare allow my girls to go to their school on their bikes. A car-free 20 minutes at about 9 am or 3.30 pm would be a symbolic gesture that would show our commitment to reducing pollution, reducing the number of cars on the roads—I accept that cars are important—and encouraging the use of bikes.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) about importing bikes from China. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that bicycles are quite expensive. They seem to have many gears and to incorporate much technology. It is difficult to buy a simple, boring, old-fashioned bike with only one gear and with no high technology. To equip a large family with bikes is a major cost.
There are lessons to be learned from Europe and symbolic acts that Ministers could undertake. There is much improvement that we can offer from this place. The message should be: citizens of Britain and the world unite, you have nothing to gain but your bicycle chains.

Ms Joan Walley: The success of the debate is plain for everyone to see. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on ensuring that it took place. Our Wednesday morning sittings are currently up for review; they may not continue in their present form. Many Members have been squeezed out of this debate because of lack of time. They wanted to contribute to it. Let us ensure that these morning debates continue. I am sorry that so little time is left when so many Members want to speak.
We have the opportunity now to draw attention to the Hovis National Bike Week, which will start next week. Let us highlight that and ensure through this debate that everyone throughout the country is involved in the debate about cycling, not necessarily by talking about cycling but by doing something about it. Perhaps we can set an example here and ensure that it is taken up throughout the country. In that way, we would make some real progress. By adopting that approach, we could ensure that the perseverance of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House, who cycle frequently, achieves results.
I put on record our thanks to the cyclists' public affairs group, the Cyclists Touring Club, the cycling campaign network and the London cycling campaign. I have not forgotten SUSTRANS, of course. I hope that all the organisations which are now lobbying us will continue to do so after the debate, which will help us to ensure that cycling is examined closely.
We have heard much this morning about how we can promote cycling. It is not that easy. We must make cycling safer, which means turning our attention to enforcement. I am concerned that traffic regulation work is no longer the priority that it once was to our police

force. The Department of Transport must work closely with the Home Office to ensure that action is taken to make cycling safer in London and throughout the country.
We have heard a great deal about the health advantages that come from cycling, and they are indeed tremendous. By encouraging cycling, we could reduce the risk of asthma. We could deal with urban congestion by a better promotion of cycling. We must work closely with the Department of Health.
Children should be encouraged to start as they mean to go on, through the provision of safer cycle routes to school. As I have said, we must reduce urban congestion.
I should declare an interest, because I have a bike. I tend to use it only for excursions on cycle routes. I want to feel safe about cycling, and I want all the children in my constituency similarly to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he proposes to work alongside his colleagues at the Department of Education.
Money must be made available for pilot projects to introduce safe cycle routes to school. The guidance issued by the Department of Transport must take account of transport policy programme submissions. Local authorities should not regard cycling and provision for it as appendages to traffic proposals. Cycling must be integrated within those proposals.
I want Minister to say how he proposes to do that. As I have stressed, there must be safe cycling routes to school. Local authorities should work in conjunction with education departments throughout the country. There must be a switch to cycling. That will lead to a lessening of congestion in inner urban areas. Public transport is not the only answer. In addition, we must promote cycling and walking.
I would like to mention briefly the work of SUSTRANS. Reference has already been made to this wonderful visionary project: a national cycle network that will go the length and breadth of the country. I do not want it to go just up the east coast. I want it to go up the west coast as well. I want it to go through the various constituencies near the one that I represent. I want it to go from the west side to the east side, and that must be reflected in the bids that are made by local authorities.
We must have an undertaking from the Minister that, rather than the balance towards the roads programme, to which his Department has given money, he will be prepared to fund, with the SUSTRANS proposals, the cycling proposals that could give us a national network, which would then offer wonderful opportunities for tourism as well.
Reference has been made to the railways. In the short time that the Minister has to reply, we really must hear how much further his Department is prepared to take forward the whole issue about bikes and trains.
We are already looking at the investment that is needed in the railways. The Labour party is absolutely opposed to the privatisation of the railways, but the Minister must tell us how far the Department of Transport will go to see what can be done to get the new train operating units prepared to introduce facilities for cyclists.
Is it the case that the regulator, John Swift, will be prepared to go further on this issue? If we cannot get bicycles carried on trains, if we cannot get a truly integrated transport system, people will continue to be cyclists—like myself—who just go out on special excursions and do not make the journeys in inner-city areas and rural communities that we want to see.
My message is that we must all go out and do what we can to ensure that we have a truly integrated transport system, and that cycling takes its place in that.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I agree with the hon. Member for (Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) about one thing: it is a great shame that these debates are not longer. It is one of the best that I have listened to in many years.
There is often a temptation for people who gather for a debate like this to translate the particular esoteric subject under discussion into the most important item on the national agenda, and it is perfectly natural that they should. I think that this is an occasion on which a group of hon. Members have recognised that this subject is treated as a poor cousin, and that it simply ought not to be. That was a theme that ran through all of the speeches today.
For me, it has been a very enjoyable debate in the sense that I believe that there has been agreement—on both sides of the House, with remarkably little exception—about what the agenda should be, about the challenges, about the dangers and the hazards, and about how we get there.
I start, as others have done, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I wonder whether I am the only Member of the House who has drawn, with some amusement and no little affection, a contrast between the present hon. Member for Blaby and his predecessor, Lord Lawson, of whom Commissioner Kinnock once said, "Lawson and energy—now there's a contradiction in terms." How much our former right hon. Friend would have enjoyed this debate, I cannot for a moment imagine.
Then I come, of course, to the figure of my good self, probably the most unlikely convert to cycling that the House can contemplate, a man who has been—somewhat, erroneously, I may say—identified as an advocate of a car economy. It has indeed fed the Norris children for a few years, but I have no more interest in that than in any other part of the extraordinarily interesting portfolio that transport is.
I say to the House, in all seriousness, that, as I have looked at the problem of how one deals with urban congestion in a modern city centre, over the past three years, with huge interest and enthusiasm, I have become convinced that this country has hugely undervalued cycling.
Let me put the figures into context. It came to me, as often happens, after one had spent a long time debating how we could get the best out of public transport. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke from the Liberal Benches, was quite right when he said that all our great energy went into improving public transport, and rightly so; that is where the mega money gets spent. No doubt that will continue in many ways to be the case.
We have all been overlooking something that is staring us in the face. It came to me, I may say, in a statistical table that SUSTRANS itself deployed: in this country, about 2.5 per cent. of journeys are made by cycle, that the European average is 15 per cent., and in other cases it is higher.
Earlier, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who I know enjoyed the earlier part of the debate, when cycling in this country was discussed and after somebody had mentioned Holland, said, "It's flatter." He is right, of course; it is indeed flatter. But the great mistake that we have made in this country is to say, "Of course they cycle in Holland, because it's flat."
The hon. Gentleman should have been with me in Birmingham, at the SUSTRANS conference, where we had an extremely interesting exposition from a Swiss delegate. Whatever one likes to say about Switzerland, it is not flat. The reality is that Switzerland has a cycle strategy, and there is a huge difference between the proportion of cycle journeys made there and in this country.
I believe that the crucial link has been mentioned already. If one really wants to know the difference between this country and others, it is the fact that, in Denmark, one is 10 times saferas a cyclist. That is why the Danes make 10 times more journeys by cycle than we do in this country. I do not think that it has anything to do with the weather or the terrain. After all, the terrain in this country differs hugely from town to town. Yet we see massive variations in cycling as a proportion of the total number of trips, depending on the community we are in.

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Mr. Norris: I did say to the hon. Gentleman that I would let him intervene, and as he is about as likely a cyclist as I am, I shall let him in.

Mr. Graham: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he quite rightly points out, Scotland is very hilly. A week on Saturday, I am launching a Bobath cycle race for nearly 2,000 people in Scotland. For the Minister's interest, I have given up smoking. In the past 12 weeks, I have not had a smoke. I am hoping to go a least a couple of hundred yards, and perhaps the following year to do a hundred miles. I invite everyone in the House to come along and take part in that cycle race, which is a good healthy pursuit, an environmental pursuit, and at the end of the day is for a good cause.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman makes a shameless advertisement, which I applaud him for. I am delighted to say that I thought that he was looking rather well. I am glad that he has given up the evil weed. All I will say to him is, for goodness' sake, do not wear lycra. I can see him doing more damage to the lycra industry in one fell swoop than a mountain of urban terrorists have done in 10 years.
My dubious contribution to the Hovis National Bike Week—now there is a shameless advertisement on national television—will be to join a gentleman who I believe is called "Mr. Motivator". I had assumed that that referred to Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, but I am told that this gentleman is a televisual performer. He and I, and a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, will be cycling to the Palace during this week.
Let me get down, if I may, in the last couple of minutes to some serious points that we must put on the record. It is about safety. It is about separating cyclists from other road users. It is therefore about priority. It is about pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, the private car and


so on. It is about recognising that in all our planning. It is about ensuring that our transport supplementary grant recognises cycling right at the centre of the strategy. That is why our transport policy programme advice stresses cycling in a very new and specific way.
In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), our transport supplementary grant expenditure, through the package approach, which she should be up to date with, will have cycling right at its centre. That means working with education authorities. It means taking on a great many of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby made, in an excellent speech, about the way in which we treat the cyclist in urban traffic. It simply is not good enough to have cyclists competing with 40 ft trucks. We have to give them their own discrete road space.
In answer to hon. Members who mentioned parking, I have become convinced that it will not be enough simply to give the cyclist a white-lined area as part of the main carriageway. In many cases, the continental experience teaches us that we can look to offering a discrete part of the whole road area to the cyclist—to pedestrians, cyclists and then other traffic. Nothing irritates elderly pedestrians more than cyclists who say, "Well, I'd sooner be a threat to them then have the truck be the threat to me." There was a lot of that in what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) called "cycling terrorism". There is no doubt that that is the direction in which we must move.

Ms Walley: Targets.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, says, "Targets." She knows that I have only 30 seconds left.
There is an excellent amount of mileage to be got from the idea of defining for ourselves in the national cycling strategy a way in which to take all the issues forward. I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss that with interested Members at length. Targets certainly have their place in that, and, to the extent that we want to build them in, recognising the difference between Bradford and York in terms of terrain, history, tradition and so on, I am sure that it is right that we should do so.
I am delighted that the debate has taken place, and only sorry to have had such an inadequate amount of time in which to reply to it. I blame none of those who have contributed, because their contributions have been superb.

Mine Shafts

Mr. George Stevenson: I am grateful for the opportunity to put before the House an extremely serious situation which is affecting many hundreds of my constituents and which has the potential to affect many thousands more. Although the subject of the debate is described by a single word on the Order Paper, I am particularly concerned with the events that led up to that situation which arises as a result of the reaction of the Coal Authority to mining searches, particularly with reference to abandoned mine shafts.
Therefore, I begin by giving a brief history of how we have arrived at the present position. In the early 1980s, the Waddilove committee, appointed by the Department of Energy, recommended that there should be a standardised response in mining searches by the then British Coal, particularly with regard to identifying abandoned mine shafts, when property is being bought and sold. No one argues that that was not a sensible approach.
That resulted in a working group being established between the Law Society and British Coal to examine ways in which it could be done. My inquiries show clearly that that is when the trouble began. Presumably, the working group was set up with the full knowledge of the Government. Its brief was to examine the situation and establish a standardised response to mining searches. The group beavered away for three or four years, or perhaps a little longer, on this important issue.
The first important point is that, as far as I can detect, there was no consultation at all in the process and the examination was clouded in secrecy. Nevertheless, in 1989 an agreement was reached between British Coal and the Law Society on a standardised response which, as I understand it, was implemented in 1991. Those decisions, taken in secrecy, have tremendous significance and serious implications because hundreds of my constituents, and potentially many thousands more throughout the country, at the stroke of someone's pen, found themselves facing a financial and social tragedy because the value of their properties was, at a stroke, to use that famous phrase, destroyed.
Coal exists in every part of Stoke-on-Trent, in Staffordshire and in many other parts of the country. Mine workings date back to the middle ages. There was a rapid expansion in the middle of the 18th century. Pits were worked out and abandoned and mine shafts were abandoned. In recent years, surveys have identified no fewer than some 4,000 disused mine shafts in particular areas. Those mining operations were unplanned and random. No precautions were taken to protect the public from them or from the abandoned mine shafts.
Since nationalisation in 1946–47, the costs of repairing damaged properties and making safe disused shafts were met by the industry or the taxpayer. But those costs must be viewed in a wider context—the social and human costs—which implies direct Government intervention and finance.
The Waddilove committee report was then examined by the working group, but despite that, between the working group being established and the decision being taken in 1989, I can find no evidence of any co-ordinated response towards mining searches. The only evidence that


I have been able to establish is that, during that critical period, when solicitors obtained responses from British Coal to searches involving mine shafts, they were told whether there was or was not a mine shaft within the vicinity of the property—within the vicinity. That was the response that they were given during the period up to 1989 by British Coal.
British Coal knew what that meant, the Law Society knew what that meant and solicitors knew what that meant. It meant within 5 m of the property. The only people who did not know what it meant were the poor souls who were purchasing and selling the properties. They were kept in the dark, and the consequences of that were horrendous.
There is certainly no evidence that I can detect of any guidelines being issued in the period between the working group being set up and the agreement being reached between the Law Society and British Coal—that is, before 1989. That is a significant issue which I shall be asking the Minister to consider.
The results of the working group in 1989 have been accepted by British Coal, the Law Society and solicitors and recognised by Government. The 5 m rule of thumb distance that was used by those organisations was never recorded or identified but, nevertheless, was accepted and used. Of that there can be no doubt. I have had that confirmed by British Coal and solicitors and I have had it recognised by the Law Society. However, the clients, the people who were buying and selling the properties, were blissfully unaware of the trap into which they were entering.
I understand that, before 1989, British Coal offered no advice on mine shafts unless it was specifically asked. In other words, if a solicitor who was doing the conveyancing did not specifically ask about mine shafts, British Coal did not believe that it was its responsibility to make any reference to them at all.
What has happened since 1989, when the Law Society and British Coal agreed on a new definition of responses to mining searches? In 1989, the year in which the Government recognised that an agreement had been reached on changing the definition, and when British Coal and the Law Society agreed on changing the definition, guidelines were issued by the Law Society—the very year in which it had been agreed to change the rules. I have the guidelines here and there is no reference whatever to the fact that the 5 m rule of thumb, which had been accepted for the previous 10 years, had been changed to 20 m by agreement in that year in the full knowledge of the Government. The guidelines from the Law Society are here and they contain no reference whatever to 20 m.
I also have a copy of guidelines that were issued in 1991 by the Law Society some two years later when, for the first time, 20 m appeared. They state:
The presence of a disused shaft within or about 20 metres of the boundary of the property should be a matter of particular concern.
Therefore, my constituents, and many other people, having bought and sold properties in the mid-1980s on the basis of a mine search stating that there was no mine shaft in the vicinity which, unknown to them, meant within 5 m, when they come to sell their properties in the early 1990s, are then told, after a mine search, that there is a mine shaft because the 5 m distance has been extended, by secret agreement—apart from what the Government know about it—to 20 m. As a result, the value of those people's properties has been devastated.
In December 1993, I wrote to the Minister for Energy, who was good enough to reply reassuringly, expressing the hope that my concern would be allayed by a press release issued earlier in the month. The press release was interesting, in that it showed that the Government knew what was going on, and revealed British Coal's attitude to the detection of mine shafts. Apparently:
It may be that in certain circumstances the present owner may be entitled to some remedy which might extend to the cost of locating and if necessary making safe the shaft.
That was agreed in December 1993 by the Government, the Law Society and British Coal.
Reports following mining searches conducted on 8 August 1994 and 17 May 1995 make no reference to 20 m. Even after the agreement reached in 1989 and its implementation in 1991—of which the Government were fully aware—houses were still being bought and sold, and reports of mining searches made no reference to the changed rules. I consider that that makes the authorities involved culpable.
I have yet to find any evidence that suggests that, before 1991, the Law Society or solicitors were offering any advice about the implications for people's properties of responses to mine searches from what was British Coal and is now the Coal Authority. Even after the Minister for Energy had assured me in his letter that everything was okay, that new guidelines had been agreed and that there was nothing to worry about, British Coal, solicitors and, presumably, the Law Society were accepting mining search responses that contained no reference to the 20 m rule. That presents the Government with some serious questions.
The issue is vital to many hundreds, potentially thousands, of families. After two years of campaigning, led by constituents of mine who are affected by this disaster, writs have been issued against the Coal Authority in three cases. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I suspect that the Coal Authority's strategy is to fight every case in court. I believe that it recognises that, if it is prepared to fight every one of those hundreds of cases in court, it will grind down those who seek justice simply because they cannot afford to take their cases to court, even with legal aid. Even if they could afford it, so many cases are involved that it would take many years for justice to be done and be seen to be done. In the meantime, families' homes and life savings are being blighted and the value of their properties reduced by at least two thirds. That is negative equity with a vengeance.
This is a chronic injustice, and cannot be acceptable. The whole process was conducted secretively in the 1980s and subsequently, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Government. First, the Government should ensure that the Coal Authority investigates the mine shafts to establish their status, as is indicated by the press release sent to me by the Minister for Energy in 1993. The Coal Authority is currently refusing to do that; it is merely sending out a plan setting out its responses, bearing a little black dot.
Secondly, the Government should inquire into the activities of the Law Society and solicitors. I am extremely concerned about the fact that I have been able to identify no advice given to clients who were purchasing properties about the meaning of the words "in the vicinity" and the change in the rules.
Thirdly—here I offer the example of the Personal Investment Authority—a compensation fund should be set up, financed by the Government, the Coal Authority and the Law Society. If such a fund is appropriate for those whose pensions have been destroyed as a result of bad advice or no advice, why is it not appropriate for those whose homes have been devalued because of bad advice or no advice?
Families have seen the largest purchase that they are likely to make destroyed at a stroke through no fault of their own. If the Government respond positively to this chronically serious situation, a massive injustice can be speedily resolved.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing the debate and on setting out the problem so clearly. As he said, a number of different problems are involved. He is one of, sadly, only a small Number of hon.Members—perhaps only a small number of people in the country—who have grappled with the legal and geological complexities of the mine shaft issue and, indeed, the wider issue of subsidence. He is right to say that a major injustice has been perpetrated: homes and their prices are being blighted by the new guidelines and the ignorance that surrounded them.
Subsidence often causes disastrous damage to properties. Both problems—the effect on house prices and the effect on the fabric of people's homes—have a huge impact: not just a financial impact, but an impact on people's personal and emotional lives and their security. Now that increasing emphasis is placed on the value of a person's major or sole capital asset—which is often the source of that person's long-term security, providing the wherewithal for care in later life—the strain caused by a threat to, or the loss of, that asset is especially severe for those who are struggling to gain compensation and justice in unhappy and unnecessary circumstances. It is corroding their lives.
A week after I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, a constituent visited my very first advice surgery. He had already been battling with my predecessor for many years over subsidence and its effect on his life. That young man—he was in his mid-thirties—was angry, baffled and confused; but he was determined that his future, and that of his young children, should not be destroyed.
That case has been going on for all the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House. That man has been struggling with those problems for over 14 years. He is now disabled; he is broken; his whole life has been destroyed. Some people would say that he has become obsessed by the issue, but if the value of one's house and one's potential to move and to care for—and create a good home for—one's children and wife are threatened, hon. Members will understand that it is easy to become obsessed and continue to battle for justice; and very easy, as with that man, to be broken.
In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that this is a monumental injustice. It is a whole variety of different injustices that

are taking place all over the country and destroying people's lives. My hon. Friend illustrated the second problem, of the inequality of the legal battle to get justice and compensation. The truth is that British Coal, now the Coal Authority, has—somewhat to its credit—a huge legal department. It has great geological expertise. It has a power and ability to sustain legal confrontation and wrangling far beyond that of the ordinary individual.
Many cases have come to me and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) who are fortunate enough to represent the city of Stoke. The city is built on coal and honeycombed by mine shafts and mine workings. Subsidence and the specific problems associated with mine shafts are an everyday event in Stoke-on-Trent. It happens all over the city and in many other cities in this country.
People are grappling with the problem. They come to our advice surgeries month after month with new cases, especially since 1989 and the confusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South outlined over mine shafts. When people engage with first British Coal, and now the Coal Authority, the battle is always totally unequal.
In the literally dozens and dozens of cases that I have assisted my constituents to tackle over the past 12 years, I have never won a single one. I do not think that that is inefficiency on my part or that of the solicitors who have assisted my constituents; it is almost impossible to win a case against British Coal, now the Coal Authority, because it has much greater expertise. It has power, expert advice and lawyers, and the ability to sustain battles far beyond the patience or pocket of most people. I doubt whether many hon. Members have won a mine shaft or mining subsidence case. Very few have been won.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, the situation is totally unacceptable and unfair in a society that believes in common justice for people when problems arise through no fault of their own. They cannot be left to the vagaries of the system or in the grip of a legal battle with an authority that is far more powerful and expert than they are. I am glad that the Minister is listening to the debate, because the Government are responsible for the matter. I do not think that anyone would claim that the Government caused the problem, but they have responsibility for the urban environment and for the conduct of the legal aid system and the Coal Authority. If they are concerned about the people who elected them, they should and must have some responsibility for and concern about relieving those completely unnecessary problems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, there are a number of things that can be done. The Government have to rethink the guidelines—or get the Law Society and all those involved to rethink them—and establish a fairer and better way of operating. They have to reconsider the question of legal advice and create a level playing field in respect of legal advice between the experts and individual members of the public.
At the very least, the Government should inquire into the conduct of the Law Society and British Coal to establish the facts and give a national picture in terms of what my hon. Friend and I have said. Our evidence is mainly anecdotal from our constituency casework, but a large number of people are being broken on the wheel


of this problem totally unnecessarily. It is a monumental injustice. The Government must surely be concerned and act on the matter now.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on raising this issue. I intend to tackle the problem from another angle, but it is an important one which affects us all.
In 1946, the then new National Coal Board decided to decentralise the plans that had been lodged in London of all the coalfield workings up to that date. The areas to which the plans were sent were designated by the National Coal Board, because the common sense that prevailed was that that was where they were needed. To get any idea of how to win coal, one must look at old workings, because one can then see the danger of encroaching into them. They are full of water and gas and a host of other problems. The decentralisation was a technical change, but it meant that the people who needed the plans—the mineral surveyors in those areas—could get ready access to them.
In 1994, the plans that were lodged in Scotland for the Scottish area were sent to Bretby. They have been decentralised and centralised again. The Coal Authority is turning history on its head. If we are to continue to develop old mining areas, then before we even start laying the foundations of anything, whether it be a factory or a road or whatever, a mineral surveyor has to examine the plans. I do not know where Bretby is. I do not know what county it is in, but it is certainly south of the border, in England, and miles away. If a mining surveyor had to visit it, it would mean an overnight stay and a cost to the individual or development concerned.
I hope that the Minister is listening, because this is an important facet of the matter. I ask the Government to reconsider their whole attitude to the lodging of plans. I should like to change it back to what it was. I have a vested interest because it happens that the plans were lodged in my constituency at Newbattle, although they did not have to be kept there and many other places were willing to take them under their umbrella. The privatisation of the plans is a worry to us because they may be handed to over to Group 4 or some other company to look after, with all the consequential horrors that may follow. That may be costly and not as efficient as we would like.
The plans are important because, when we talk about shafts, we are talking about a multitude of different things. The shafts can be very deep and very large, and they can be aslant. They may be old bell pits, which have a small hole in the top. Many moons ago, mining was done using the bell system. Such pits collapsed regularly and are not recorded in the plans.
People say that the plans can be wired down or faxed up. Sometimes, survey maps show a multitude of seams with varied colours, perhaps not so drastic as hard blues or hard reds, but with shades of different colours. With age, the colours fade into insignificance and all look the same. One can spot things that one was not looking for on such a plan. In other words, the mineral surveyor has to see the original plan before he can approve any development move afoot. I plead with the Government to reverse what has been done. It is so important.
Abandoned workings are important. In one disaster—I think that it was the Lofthouse disaster—we found that the workings which tapped into the pit were full of water; the shafts had been filled in, but not capped. Old railway lines or girders, or whatever was to hand, had been sunk into the side of the shaft 30 ft or 40 ft down—or even less—battens had been put on top and the shaft was only partly filled in. The rest of the shaft was empty and over the years it filled with water from the workings below. Such shafts become a sort of underground reservoir, like an artesian well in reverse. If tapped into, the huge column of water in the shaft gets into the workings.
After the Lofthouse disaster, or whatever disaster it was, the National Coal Board sought to find out where the shafts were. It had to call on local knowledge because the records were not absolutely spot on. The ordnance surveys of the geology were not accurate. In other words, faults were discovered in the plans.
If we are to bring prosperity back to the mining areas which have been decimated by the closure of the mines, we must ensure that accurate information about the plans is given. We have heard horrendous stories about houses being undermined by old workings. Many of the old privately owned coal companies had what were called "marches"—lines defining where they could or could not work a seam of coal—but many companies encroached on those lines through greed and the barriers between one seam of coal and another were removed. In some cases, they even broke through a march to steal machinery and plant; it was common knowledge that such things happened, but the breaches were not recorded on the plans. Many people therefore think that they are sitting on a solid piece of ground that was not worked because there had been a march, but I have news for them: the seams were worked, but not systematically.
The modern method is total extraction by the long wall system, but the old system was the stoop and room system. In other words, barriers or squares of coal were left in place, which caused undulation on the surface. Many workings were near the surface, so the subsidence became even worse. Some may even have been at an angle, because some seams of coal do not lie on a horizontal plane but undulate. Some are practically vertical in some parts of the country.
All those complications have to be borne in mind. When added to the other problems of mining subsidence caused by industries involving the extraction of lime and clay and the working of gravel pits, the seriousness of the matter becomes even clearer. Many clay pits in and around Stoke-on-Trent were worked under the old system but then open-casted and done away with. If one multiplies all those problems in an industrial urban area, and in some of the rural areas that are now being developed, the potential for disaster is clear.
I plead with the Minister to understand that it is nonsense to centralise the plans and to impose further costs on an individual who is building a house or on a company or developer. I am playing the Scottish card but it sticks in the craw, as people say in Scotland, that we should have to hand over our plans to an English organisation way down south, wherever it is, which means that we have to get on a plane or train to find out about our plans. They should be lodged in Scotland, in Wales and in the regions where people want to look at them.
I do not want to go down south to look at the north-east plans or the Welsh or Stoke-on-Trent plans. The people of Scotland are not interested in them. The plans should be lodged where the relevant people can have access to them. Bretby might be nearer to Stoke-on-Trent than to Scotland—I do not know—but I want our plans brought back to Scotland. I hope that the Minister will see common sense. I guarantee that we can fix up a company or organisation that will look after the plans properly and at reasonable cost and ensure that the people of Scotland and the mineral surveyors have easier and cheaper access to them than would be the case if the plans went to Bretby.

Ms Joan Walley: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak about mine shafts and adits, which are very important to my constituents. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on bringing the issue to the House's attention. It is important to put it on record that in Stoke-on-Trent especially, but also in other parts of the country, there is a particular problem because our coal mining industry developed haphazardly. It was not simply a matter of sinking a deep shaft in one or two places; as my hon. Friend said, the way in which the industry developed means that we have a large number of abandoned mine shafts and adits which are causing huge problems for so many of our constituents.
The purpose of the debate is to express to the Minister how important it is that he tells us what action he is prepared to take in the Department of Trade and Industry and what action he is prepared to take with other organisations—I am thinking especially of the Law Society and the Department of the Environment—to try to find a real and lasting solution to the problems being experienced in Stoke-on-Trent.
In recent months, we have heard a great deal about the problem of water pollution caused by abandoned mines, something that has been the subject of much discussion in debates on the Environment Bill which is currently in Committee. The problem in Stoke-on-Trent is like a time bomb ticking away and has been hugely underestimated. For the purpose of social justice, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred, the Government must make it clear that they are prepared to deal with the problem.
I said that the basic problem is the legacy of mining and the way in which it developed over the centuries. I have had extensive discussions with officers of the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment, who seem to deny that there is an environmental problem. It is true that there is a problem with derelict land contaminated as a result of extensive mining operations, but there is also an environmental problem. Important research and evidence recently produced by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers have confirmed once and for all that there is not only a problem of contamination and dereliction but an environmental problem. As we have heard, the way in which the air is affected by the old shafts could lead to further contamination. I want to hear the Minister accept for the record that there is an environmental problem.
The problem came to light in Stoke-on-Trent only about three years ago, largely because of the decision by the Law Society and the Coal Authority. As far as I can work out, the decision has no legal status and was entirely voluntary. It may have been publicised at the time, but it was certainly not well publicised.

Mr. Stevenson: Does not the fact that the Minister wrote to me in the most reassuring terms in December 1993 enclosing a copy of the Law Society's press release prove that the Government accepted de facto what British Coal and the Law Society had done?

Ms Walley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have accepted what has been done. I was attempting to make the point that there does not seem to be any basis in statute for action, but the Government must none the less take responsibility for the decisions.
The practice of building societies and insurers stems from the decisions, too. It is quite clear that people who were deemed fit to be granted a mortgage on a particular property and who now wish to extend their mortgage, perhaps to extend their property, having found that they cannot sell it, are being refused permission. A letter sent to a constituent of mine from the Britannia building society makes it clear that such practice is a result of the agreement between the Coal Authority and the Law Society. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I do not think that the Minister can escape responsibility for such decisions. It is important that he understands exactly how that decision affects people in our constituencies.
We only realised that there was a problem about three years ago when it began to come to light that the 20 m decision was preventing people from obtaining mortgages on properties that they wished to purchase. Previously, the housing market was not really moving and houses were not selling. It is only since there has been some movement, although very little, in the housing market that huge problems have come to light. That is why so many people now find themselves living in a home that is blighted, yet to all intents and purposes it is absolutely fine and is in one sense in no risk of subsidence.
It is a question not only of whether the Coal Authority will take responsibility if a house is swallowed by a huge hole as a result of some subsidence or disturbance but of whether the Government will take responsibility for the blight which stretches right across north Staffordshire and affects areas of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme. We want to know how the Government propose to deal with that important issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) commented at length on another problem: the way in which the records of the Coal Authority have been centralised and stored. My constituents have another problem. When it is put to them that there is a mine shaft or an adit within 20 m of their property within their curtilage, some dispute the decision and spend huge sums of money on independent mining searches to prove that the shaft is not where the Coal Authority located it, but somewhere else, perhaps within 20 m of somebody else's home.
Even when constituents have gone to considerable expense to commission an independent mining report, the Coal Authority has not been prepared to accept that a shaft has been located in a different place, despite what the report said. Therefore, even having gone to such lengths


to try to remove blight from their properties, individual home owners are stuck with a report from the Coal Authority that suggests that, because there is some doubt, it perceives that a mine shaft is within 20 m of their property. Despite so much effort, constituents still cannot sell their properties.
There is an environmental problem to be considered. Given that the Government have accepted responsibility, the problem is what they are to do about it. There is also a problem with the collation of records and how we can prove them right or wrong. But the real crux of the issue is that, like my hon. Friend, I cannot conceive of individuals having to spend five or 10 years of their life taking legal action to try to resolve the issue in some way or another. The Government must do something about that. What will it be? That is what we want the Minister to tell us.
The problem could be solved properly by establishing an open register of information. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Stoke-on-Trent, South has done an enormous amount of work on getting access to information. Given the derelict land and the legacy of coal mining, people are entitled to know about the Coal Authority's records. They are entitled to know that those records are correct and they are entitled to seek from the Coal Authority some statement of whether a particular shaft, having been correctly identified, does or does not threaten a property. If the shaft does not threaten a property, some plain legal statement of that fact should be made by the Coal Authority and the Law Society to enable people wishing to sell or purchase properties to obtain insurance and mortgages without any problems. Such a statement would instantly remove the blight.
When the Coal Authority and the proposed environment agency—it is also an environmental issue—are not prepared to say that there is no threat whatever to a particular dwelling because of the accurately located mine shaft or adit, we would need to explore the possibility raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South of considering some compensation scheme, so that the cost of putting right the problems of the mine shafts is met by those responsible for that legacy and not picked up as an individual item of expense by an unsuspecting person who bought their property not knowing of the blight affecting it.
The Government must address those issues. I cannot begin to tell the Minister—I hope that he will visit Stoke-on-Trent to see the problems for himself and speak to our constituents—the extent of sheer desperation felt by local people because they cannot resolve the issue. It is not enough for the Minister to say that the problem is the responsibility of another Department or of the Coal Authority. Concerted action must be taken across the Departments with the DTI taking the lead. We have seen the cavalier way in which British Coal has been sold off. It is all well and good to sell off parts of British Coal that make profits for the likes of Mr. Budge and others, but responsibility must also be taken for the various liabilities in the ground. We want the Government to take responsibility and find a way to deal with the injustices faced by our constituents.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on securing this Adjournment debate and apologise to him for missing the early part; I was held up

in traffic coming back from another meeting. I had the opportunity, however, to speak to him and to those in his office earlier in the week. We were able to go over a number of the points which he has raised today and which our hon. Friends who represent Stoke have reinforced this morning.
The problem which has emerged in north Staffordshire may be of a broader national significance because it stems in some respects at least as a consequence of the agreement to redefine the acceptable distance between mine shafts and households from 20 m to 5 m, which obviously affects a far greater number of properties. That has, of course, resulted in blight and difficulties in valuing properties.
In correspondence between the House of Commons Library and British Coal and the Law Society, the Law Society suggested that the solution for vendors or people who find themselves in difficulty relating to blight would be to instruct an engineer or a mining surveyor to report the most likely location and condition of the mining shaftt for a reasonable fee. It is unreasonable to expect that of people who are already living in a house, who have been making their payments and who have carried out surveys in the past, simply because of a change in procedure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, there is no legislation. There is simply a recommendation, a stroke-of-the-pen job—and the difficulties arising from that are facing people with limited resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) was banging an old drum that he and I have been beating for many years when he talked about the problems caused by the removal of mining records from the mining areas. It is expensive to send people to other places, so the "reasonable fee" concept is stretched at every turn. It costs more and more for surveyors to do the job, because they may have to travel long distances and carry out considerable research.
My hon. Friend's knowledge of the Newbattle archive is second to none in the House and, as he said, mining plans operate on a layer-on-layer principle, so it is difficult for them to be faxed across the country. That is why it is essential for people to have easy access to them.
That would be difficult enough, even if it were the only problem, but we know that not only are about 150,000 mine shafts in the United Kingdom recorded on maps of varying qualities but it is estimated that there are no records at all for a further 150 mine shafts, whose location it would take different forms of research to establish. So, if I may try to anticipate what he may say in his summing up, we must not allow the Minister to hide behind the proposition that once a reasonable fee has been paid to a surveyor everything will be all right and the building societies, the banks and the other mortgage providers will be satisfied.
What has happened is not the result of malign intent on the part of the Law Society, British Coal or the Coal Authority. Nevertheless, the consequences of their action have created considerable difficulties for many people in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire—largely because of the thoughtlessness of the two authorities in failing to make proper provision for the results that would flow from their decision.
We need an inquiry into the role of the Law Society and we need to know what the status of mine shafts is, because we know that they are not all necessarily the


source of environmental damage and safety risks. We must have a far clearer picture so that the people in the affected households and, perhaps even more important, potential lenders of funds to new buyers of the properties, know exactly what the position is.
I get the impression that the Law Society paid insufficient attention to the legal consequences, so it should be answerable for that. In the deathbed throes of its dying days, British Coal has become an irresponsible organisation, passing jobs on to other people, and the Coal Authority, not unnaturally, is stepping back and saying, "We are a new authority and we have limited resources. Why should we have to pick up the tab?"
Of course, the Coal Authority is funded by the Government, and if it finds that the problems are as serious as my hon. Friends suggest—I have no reason to doubt that they are—and that it will be required to help to remedy them, it will need additional funding to take the job on.
In recent years, there has been an enhanced appreciation of the problems of subsidence. In a way, the difficulties now arising are almost a by-product of the greater awareness of those problems. I hope that the Government will show a commitment to the problems arising from the discovery of mine shafts and the compensation now required or, alternatively, change the system of definition to make the position clearer. They have a choice, but the one choice that they do not have is to sit on their hands and do nothing.
I welcome the debate, because it provides the ideal opportunity for the Government to announce a series of steps in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South suggested. The Law Society, the Coal Authority and British Coal should get together and make clear the exact character and status of mine shafts, the dangers that they pose and their effects on the value of property when potential blight affects development and sale. After the inquiry, there should be some recognition that there are responsibilities that should be shared among those three bodies.
We shall have to consider the different ways in which the compensation fund could operate. In some instances, the question will be whether compensation is required at all. But legal aid must be provided so that until such time as the Government introduce some umbrella arrangement—

Mr. Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, in the three cases in our area in which writs have been issued against the Coal Authority, all of which are legally aided, people have been required to pay contributions of up to £150 per month? My hon. Friend will realise that that effectively debars from the legal system people with a strong case who have been the victims of injustice.

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that. I have here a note from the Coal Authority that says that there are currently 23 court cases and that three writs have been received in legally aided cases alleging negligence or breach of contract. Even if people have not quite been economical with the truth, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting on the record the fact that the level of legal aid available does not make going to law attractive

for the owners of small properties who want to move on because of the size of their families, but who have only limited resources. When such people try to bring court cases, they are hampered by the legal aid system. It offers a glimpse of the carrot but does not go anything like as far as would be necessary to deliver the goods.
The Government should act quickly and recognise that there is a serious problem, which will increase as more households become aware of difficulties that they had never realised existed. The longer it all takes and the further we get away from the reasons why the problem was created in the first place, the more difficult it will be to remedy it.
The Coal Authority is a fledgling authority with limited resources; it has nothing like the back-up that the old British Coal had. As has been explained, there are also increasing problems with the records. Action is needed as a matter of urgency, so I hope that the Minister will go some way towards meeting the three requests made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. We need an investigation, an inquiry into the role of the Law Society and some compensation arrangements, and we need them quickly. That is why I am happy to support my hon. Friend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on having been fortunate enough to secure the debate. As I have said before, in my 20 years in the House I have never succeeded in securing even one such debate, although I put in for almost every one. I am going for the sympathy vote at an early stage.
The hon. Gentleman has raised matters that are of serious concern to his constituents, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to them. The fact that he has been supported by his two colleagues, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), shows that there is widespread concern about the matters.
I welcome the opportunity to explain the relevant measures which have been implemented by the Government, and to suggest what those people who are affected can do for themselves. I hope to show that there is generally much less cause for concern on the issues than might appear at first sight, and I hope to conclude by making some suggestions as to how those concerns might be best allayed.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) started with a highly partisan tirade against the English to which I shall not respond. The Health and Safety Commission advised that it was appropriate for the Coal Authority to take over British Coal's role as the custodian of the abandoned mine plans. There are good reasons why British Coal should centralise the records, and the cost of doing so includes the costs of duplication and providing the facilities needed to maintain the plans in proper condition.
The plans will be supervised by a qualified surveyor and, provided there is adequate access to and proper supervision of the plans, the Health and Safety Commission is content that safety will not be compromised. I understand the hon. Gentleman's


reluctance to travel across the border to Bretby, but he will find that he will be made most welcome if he wishes to inspect the plans.
I can give the hon. Gentleman a small piece of encouragement. In light of the concerns expressed about the removal of the plans from local mining consultants and surveyors in Newtongrange in Scotland, British Coal has removed to Bretby only those plans that are unique. The remainder of duplicate plans—some 87 per cent. of the original total—are to remain in Scotland. Where plans have been removed, British Coal has taken the helpful step of arranging for copies to be held on slides in Scotland, as well as a catalogue of plans.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I am aware that some plans will be left in Scotland, but we will need the up-to-date plans. There are historical plans which have not been verified, but the plans that are needed are not in Scotland but in Bretby. Mining engineers and representatives of mining surveyors have made representations on this matter. Someone who wants to see those plans must either go to Bretby or get copies sent by post. In the latter case, he or she will be unable to see from the copies what is happening in other parts of the surrounding area and will have to examine the original plans. The idea that the plans are all packaged and can be sent by post is not acceptable.

Mr. Page: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will not be able to give him any more comfort. I am sure that the post containing the appropriate plans for mining engineers to examine will get to Scotland from Bretby.
There are a number of different concerns in relation to mine shafts, and I shall try to respond to those that have been raised by hon. Members. I shall focus briefly on the potential risks of subsidence or shaft collapses relating to abandoned coal mines, and also on the mining report system now operated by the Coal Authority as it affects people trying to sell their homes. Those have been the central concerns of the debate.
As has been pointed out by all hon. Members who have spoken during the debate, there are a large number of mine entrances, shafts and adits throughout the country. The Coal Authority has records of about 150,000, and estimates that there may be many more which are unrecorded. Going on the experience of British Coal—this helps to put the matter into some perspective—the Coal Authority expects some 400 call-outs a year related to surface hazards, half of which may be related to both shafts and adits.
That may seem to be a large number, but I am given to understand that, in most cases, shafts are found in open fields rather than in someone's back garden. Very often, what is found is not a gaping hole but a dip in the ground similar to a shallow crater. I mention the numbers so that the House can see the matter on a proper scale.
We must keep in perspective the real incidence of serious problems relating to shafts, which is very low. There have been historic incidents in which people have fallen down mine shafts, but I understand that none of the Coal Authority staff concerned with subsidence can recall an incident within the past 10 or 20 years. Equally, where shafts are discovered it is relatively uncommon for them

to cause damage to property. I understand that the Coal Authority has been called out to 300 incidents or problems since it took over responsibility for the matters last year.

Mr. Stevenson: A press release issued by the Minister for Industry and Energy in December 1993 clearly said that home owners would be entitled to investigations to establish the status of the mine shafts and, in some circumstances, the cost of making them safe. Will the Minister give an assurance that that will happen, because the Coal Authority is refusing to do anything of the sort?

Mr. Page: I was going to come to that matter later, but I shall deal with it now. I have not seen the release to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I would like to have an opportunity to respond to him separately on that point once I have seen the document. He makes a valid point, but he will understand my natural scepticism until I have seen the release. I shall also take advice on the matter.
There have been about 300 incidents and problems since the Coal Authority took over responsibility last year. Some 180 were related to shafts or collapses of old workings, while damage was done to buildings in only four cases, none of which was structural damage. That should help to make everyone realise the size of the problems we are facing.

Ms Walley: We do not fear that there will be damage to properties as a result of the existence of mine shafts or adits. We are concerned about the blight on properties, and I hope that the Minister will come to that matter. Will he give a commitment on the blight that people are facing?

Mr. Page: I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes, and I shall come to that in a few minutes. I felt that it was important to give to the House the realities, rather than the perceptions. I mention those facts not to belittle the problems which have occurred but to put them in perspective. We should recognise that they are, in fact, relatively rare.
We should note that the problems are relatively rare in relation to the 150,000 or so coal mining entrances or shafts that are known. The disclosure that a shaft exists near a property should not realistically be a major cause for concern if the discovery is merely a result of a mining search. If a shaft has not given any trouble for 20, 50 or 100 years, it will not necessarily give any trouble in the future.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister not understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) made? We are concerned not with the physical danger caused by a mine shaft but with the effect that the shaft has on mortgage and insurance companies, who do not take as relaxed a view as the Minister. As soon as those companies are aware of the location of a mine shaft, they freeze any financial activity on a property. Will the Minister address that point?

Mr. Page: I do understand that point. If the hon. Gentleman could have contained his natural enthusiasm, for which he is well known in the House, he would have seen that I shall deal with that point. I am relaxed about it. I understand those concerns, which we all have in various shapes and forms, whether they are about a blight next to a motorway or about previously unknown underground workings. In most cases, the presence of an old mine shaft, even if not previously known, should pose no problems. The fact that a shaft has remained unknown shows that it has caused no problems.
Law Society guidance gives the most practical course to be taken by property owners who are worried about a shaft that has been identified in a mining report. Subject to obtaining permission for any surface access needed, they can arrange for an engineer or mining service to access the shaft. In most cases, that results in a certificate showing that there is no risk of subsidence to the property.

Mr. Stevenson: rose—

Mr. Page: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, I should like to say that he has already referred to the notice that he received from my hon. Friend in the DTI, and I shall deal with that matter.

Mr. Stevenson: I apologise for interjecting like this but, with respect to the Minister, my concern is increasing. He said that he would try to help us and our constituents, but so far he has not done so. He talks about possible responses and how the Law Society's 1991 guidelines are being adhered to. For the first time, those guidelines mention 20 m. He will recall that I gave two instances of responses to mining searches, one in 1994 and another in 1995, which made no reference whatever to the 20 m. What is the point in having guidelines, which the Minister says are being implemented, when they are simply ignored?

Mr. Page: This will sound like a record, but I shall discuss some aspects of the legal responsibilities of those who conduct searches.
I was referring to the certificate that confirms that there is no risk. Even if an assessment is less reassuring, it should be remembered that the mining company responsible for the shaft or the Coal Authority, as appropriate, is obliged under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 to rectify any subsidence damage that the shaft has caused, no matter how extensive or minor the subsequent damage. I emphasise that clear statutory remedies are available, whatever the actual damage sustained by a property as a result of subsidence.
I have already mentioned the Coal Authority's responsibilities for safety. Any household with substantive grounds for concern about the safety of an old shaft should contact the authority.
The Coal Mining Subsidence Act shows what extensive and expensive remedies are available for subsidence damage. The provisions reflect the recommendations of the independent committee chaired by Mr. Lewis Waddilove, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred. That committee carried out a thorough examination of the arrangements in place at the time and made 65 recommendations in its report published in 1984. It concluded that the main thrust of the existing provisions, both statutory and voluntary, were right, although some significant gaps remained to be filled. It recommended that the previous legislation be consolidated and extended, and that British Coal's voluntary code be enacted.
The Government accepted those recommendations in the 1987 White Paper entitled "The Repair and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence Damage" and issued a consultative paper on the content of new legislation in 1988. The 1991 Act took into account comments received in response to that consultation

exercise. It repealed most of the previous existing legislation and replaced it with a new statutory framework incorporating British Coal's voluntary undertakings and other recommendations made in the Waddilove report. It was the result of long and careful consultation and brought together several Acts of Parliament and codes of practice into a single Act, giving a wide definition of subsidence damage and introducing important improvements.
The practical effect of the legislation is to provide people affected by coal mining subsidence damage with a simple and straightforward claims procedure and a comprehensive set of remedies. It confers on the claimant a clear right to compensation, and places on the mining company or the Coal Authority a clear duty either to rectify the damage or to provide appropriate financial compensation to the claimant.

Ms Walley: We are discussing not damage that has occurred but people who cannot get adequate mortgages or insurance cover on their properties because of anticipated damage. To what extent do the existing regulations on subsidence embrace the aspect of blight relating to mine shafts and adits? Before the debate finishes at 1 o'clock, will the Minister deal with the problem that arises because building societies in our area tell our constituents that mortgage facilities will not be granted as a result of a decision made by the Coal Authority?

Mr. Page: Believe it or not, I shall deal with that point in a moment or two. It is important that I put on record the fact that a number of extensive arrangements and support measures are in place for people whose properties suffer subsidence. I hope that that will give some form of comfort to people who may be worried about buying a property, because those support measures can be used if they are unfortunate enough to suffer that damage.
It might be helpful at this point if I explain briefly how the claims procedure works. Under the 1991 Act, mining companies are obliged to notify all owners and occupiers who may be affected by subsidence damage as a result of the coming 12 months' mining. That notification includes a guidance booklet about claimants' rights, together with a form for making claims entitled "Damage Notice". Not everyone so notified suffers damage. For those who do, however, the next stage is to make a claim by completing the damage notice and sending it to the mine owner.
The Coal Authority, which handles all claims for the time being, has set itself specific targets for reducing waiting times at all stages of the claims process. Targets are being put in place to ensure that people are given notice within a certain period. During that time, the authority is busy compiling the mining report and claims history to ensure that its assessors are fully briefed. Its target for communicating a decision to the claimant on how to proceed after the inspection is a maximum of four weeks for 90 per cent. of cases. The target period for commencing remedial work after acceptance by the claimant of the authority's decision is a maximum of six weeks in 80 per cent. of cases.
Opposition Members will be fully aware of the arbitration system that is in place if a dispute arises. Two arbitration systems have been set up; both are run independently by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and are specifically designed to deal with disputes about


subsidence damage. Naturally, claimants also have the normal right to pursue any dispute through the court—in this case, the Lands Tribunal.
May I return to the problems raised by Opposition Members? In addition to their rights under the 1991 Act and dependent on circumstances, property owners may be entitled to financial remedies from one of the parties to earlier mining searches. That is from their solicitor or conveyancer or from British Coal. It would not be appropriate to discuss those legal possibilities in detail, but we should note their potential relevance.
During the debate, as I believe Opposition Members appreciate, I have been struck by the existence of an information gap. It is the object of the Opposition to make life difficult for the Government and to argue strongly on behalf of their constituents the cases that they consider appropriate, regarding which action should be taken. However, I believe that they have succumbed to the temptation to paint a picture that is slightly gloomier than reality.
Making due allowance for that, it appears that many people, especially in the Stoke-on-Trent region, are unaware of important aspects of the coal mining subsidence remediation regime, of the responsibilities of the Coal Authority for safety and of the helpful guidance that the Law Society has issued for tackling cases in which mining reports appear to show unexpected problems.

Mr. O'Neill: I gained the impression that the Minister was about to conclude. Will he tell us to what extent the Law Society, his officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and the banks and mortgage lenders generally have been in concert in discussing those problems? That is the key. With respect, we are worried, not about damage to property but about the consequences of blight on the value of property as a result of a change in planning arrangements—not even planning law.
What has happened in respect of the Law Society and the DTI officials and Coal Authority officials? Have they been able to communicate to the mortgage lenders the fact that the problems are not as great as the mortgage lenders would appear to believe? That is the problem that confronts us.

Mr. Page: I am unaware of any such discussions taking place to draw those anxieties to the attention of mortgage lenders, but I hope that what has been said in the debate will give some comfort and reassurance to mortgage lenders. However, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am aware of no reason why I should not return to the Coal Authority and ask it to undertake a liaison operation with the mortgage lenders in the Stoke-on-Trent region to reassure them—exactly as I have endeavoured to reassure them today—about the general conditions and general supports that are available through the various Coal Acts, especially the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.

Mr. Stevenson: On the Minister's proposed liaison, as I think he called it, with the Coal Authority, the mind boggles. However, when that happens, will he mention the Law Society guidelines of 1991, which for the first time mentioned a radius of 20 m, and the fact—I shall provide the Minister with copies—that I have in my hand two searches from the Coal Authority dated 1995 that make no mention of the 20 m? When he meets the Coal

Authority, will he mention the fact that the guidelines that were issued by the Law Society in 1991 and in 1989 are not being implemented in 1995?

Mr. Page: I return to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Yes, I will arrange that liaison and I will more than willingly draw attention to what appears to be a failure to mention that matter in the searches. The Coal Authority is perfectly aware of the Law Society recommendations, and it is the Law Society that decided to review the advice to its members from the start.
I hope that this morning's debate has helped to shed more light on what has happened.

Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Page: May I make a little progress, because I hope that we can shed more light on matters?
I hope that the Coal Authority can undertake that liaison, which will reassure many of those people in Stoke-on-Trent who are worried about the blight notice.
I would not want to make any specific suggestions today because I am sure that those who best know the local circumstances can advise on what the steps should be. I do know that the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Stoke-on-Trent, South will meet the chief executive of the Coal Authority shortly to explore the authority's role in more depth. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will join them to make it a triumvirate.

Mrs. Llin Golding: And the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Mr. Page: And the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Perhaps I may leave them with the suggestion that further steps to give wider currency to those matters locally would be worth while. Naturally, the authority already has contacts with the building societies and has offered to meet and discuss the issues with interested parties. I emphasise that. Although those contacts exist, I have not been involved in those contacts and shall adopt the approach that I have already agreed. If that can contribute to some local initiatives that would improve understanding of their roles, I have no doubt that those organisations would wish to do so, and I would wish them to do so.

Ms Walley: I have one eye on the clock. I want to establish, before the Minister concludes, that he is able to confirm to the House that, whatever debate he has with the Coal Authority, he will subsequently meet my hon. Friends and me, with whomever else from the Law Society we feel will be necessary to make it possible to have a meaningful discussion, so that we can find a way of tackling the problems—in other words, that he will continue the dialogue, and that we can find a way to proceed following his further discussions with the Coal Authority.

Mr. Page: I always look forward to meeting the hon. Lady; I remember a private Member's Bill in which we made progress in helping merchant shipping. If, after that meeting with the Coal Authority, the hon. Lady and her colleagues feel that they have not made any ground and want to visit me to discuss the matter further, I shall be perfectly happy and more than prepared to do so.
Before I say my last few words, I shall mention the current legal action against the authority, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. It would obviously be inappropriate to debate any particulars of the case, which is, or may be, the subject of court proceedings. However, I understand from the Coal Authority that there are many cases relating to Stoke-on-Trent in connection with which it has received a letter before action or writ, and reference has been made to the numbers. In general, those cases relate to the disclosure of a disused mine shaft or mine shafts in a coal mining search report that were not disclosed in a previous report where the criteria were different. The authority is defending those actions; I strongly suspect that the two cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers are typical of those cases.
I understand that, as far as the Coal Authority is aware, none of the properties shows any sign of coal mining subsidence and, as I have explained, if they should suffer any such damage at any time there is a clear right to repair under the 1991 Act.
I shall now summarise. First, any old coal mine shafts can give rise to safety problems. They can also cause subsidence damage. Both types of problem are relatively unknown, not in absolute terms in relation to numbers of incidents but in relation to the large numbers of coal mining shafts that are known to exist. The mere presence of a shaft, where the shaft has not previously been identified on the ground and gives no practical problems, should not be a major concern or a cause of anxiety. That is a key matter. However, Opposition Members have made the understandable case regarding worries about blight.
Secondly, in the exceptional cases—exceptional in relation to the total number of shafts that are known—where old shafts give rise to safety or subsidence problems, there are clear statutory duties on the Coal Authority or, where relevant, on its lessees to act and to remedy any safety problem or subsidence damage.
Because of the low incidence of problems and the statutory right of householders where problems are encountered, there should be no widespread concern among mortgage lenders, conveyancers or house buyers in cases where a recent mining search discloses a shaft that was not recorded on earlier mining searches. In all cases, it will be necessary for an extension of the mining search process, in line with the Law Society's guidance, to include an assessment of the materiality of the shaft.
I am left with the feeling that there is an information gap on some issues. There may be further steps that could usefully be taken at a local level to improve awareness of the facts and the relevant statutory framework. I would welcome any moves in that direction.

University Funding (Luton)

1 pm

Sir Graham Bright: I welcome the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House an issue that effects my constituency and highlights one of the Government's most striking successes: the increase in participation rates in higher education. I welcome my two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel), who support the case that I shall put.
Recognising the importance of ensuring that the people of Britain are equipped with the highest level of education necessary to meet the challenges of the future, the Government made a manifesto commitment in 1992 to have one in three young people in higher education by the year 2000. To put that target in perspective, it should be remembered that, in 1979, the figure was only one in eight. In order to assist in achieving that target, huge sums of money were allocated to both revenue and capital funding for higher education establishments.
I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that the success of the Government's policy was such that the target levels of participation in higher education were achieved much sooner than originally envisaged, in 1993—seven years ahead of target. One third of young people now enter higher education and the participation rate for mature students has risen by 50 per cent. since 1979. We have the second highest graduation rate in the European Union, and our universities are internationally highly respected.
The achievement of the Government's aims ahead of target was possible only through the commitment of our universities which, as well as increasing student numbers, have also increased efficiency so that costs per student have substantially reduced. All universities have played their part in the success and all must be congratulated. However, as the hon. Member for Luton, South, I must say that some universities have played a greater part than others.
That is particularly true of the new universities, a group to which the university of Luton is the most recent English member, having been granted university status in 1993. Luton increased its full-time student numbers from 1,000 to 8,000 in four years, and has about 9,000 this year. Full-time students represent 65 per cent. of the total, and 28 per cent. of the total is made up of part-time higher education students. A further 7 per cent. are in-company or short-course students.
The strategic importance of Luton within the south-east cannot seriously be questioned. It was therefore right for the former Luton college of higher education fully to take on board Government policies and expand in order to reach university status.
Not only did the university of Luton increase the total number of full-time students, it expanded most in the subject areas that are job orientated—the so-called band 2 or workshop-based subjects. The band 1 to band 2 ratio at Luton is 49.8:50.2 per cent.—much lower than other higher education institutions. That means that Luton is educating more people in the subjects directly related to jobs than any other university. That is of particular importance when one considers that the unemployment rate in Luton is nearly 10 per cent. and, although decreasing, is still higher than the average in the south-east.
The university of Luton is also a teaching-oriented institution and believes that its expertise in the development of teaching skills, and a variety of teaching environments should be valued as such. In time, it will develop a research base, but its mission involves a strong commitment to creating opportunities for access to higher education for under-represented groups such as women and for those who do not have the traditional entry requirements for higher education.
Some 55.6 per cent. of the university of Luton's students are over the age of 21, and female students outnumber male students. That is perhaps not surprising when it is noted that 40 per cent. of the total are local students; many young mothers take the opportunity to educate themselves at the university while bringing up a family. The student profile at the university of Luton accords exactly with the groups of people to which the Government's policy to expand participation in higher education was, and continues to be, targeted.
The university of Luton's unique role in educating people to a high level for work is also recognised by the many world-class companies that operate from Luton. The university receives industrial support from, among others, Vauxhall Motors, Whitbread, Willmott Dixon, Barclays bank and National Westminster bank. Paid work placements are provided by 125 companies, and more than 100 companies support the university through the advisory, validation and quality assurance committees. Those companies would only part with their hard-earned cash and expertise to support an institution that was providing what they needed to help their businesses succeed.
On the basis of all that information, I contend that the university of Luton has more than played its part in ensuring the success of Government policy. Unfortunately, Luton, along with many of the so-called new universities—those that have come into existence in the past two years—are victims of their own success. I hasten to add that I do not believe that to be a result of Government policy, but because of the detailed workings of that policy that are dealt with outside the political arena.
As I am sure we are all aware, English universities receive funding from two main sources: course fees, and grants from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the HEFCE. Course fees are administered by local education authorities and are the same for different types of courses, regardless of where they are studied. A band 2 student brings with him or her the same amount of funding whichever university he or she attends.
Until 1993, the fee income per student was high, and there was no capping limit. It was mainly through that mechanism that the increase in student numbers was achieved, because universities and colleges of higher education could afford to grow by taking on students on a fees-only basis. Luton college of higher education took full advantage of that opportunity and, by growing, was able to attain university status. When the Government's targets had been reached, the fees per student were reduced by more than a half, which had the effect of consolidating student numbers and increasing the importance of HEFCE funding.
Funding is allocated separately for research and teaching. There was much publicity not long ago when several well-known, traditionally research-based universities won their case to maintain their element of

research funding. It is claimed that research funding and teaching funding are mutually exclusive. That contention should be challenged as, especially with band 2 subjects, there is no doubt that some so-called research facilities are used by both undergraduate and postgraduate students. I will not say more about that subject, as I wish to concentrate on the teaching element of HEFCE funding.
The funding for teaching is allocated according to a formula which should be fair and transparent—unfortunately, it is neither. Comparative analysis of HEFCE funding for teaching from one university to another is not easy, because different types of courses are funded differently, with band 1, humanities, funded at the lowest level and band 3, medical studies, funded at the highest level, with band 2 in between.
The use of the raw data of average unit council funding—where the total allocation for teaching is divided by the total number of students—is indicative of inequity in the system, and shows that something is not right. For example, in 1994, the amount of HEFCE funding allocated for teaching per full-time equivalent student in Luton was £1,532, compared with £2,336 for the university of Hertfordshire, and £2,850 for the university of York.
I am sure that the Minister will note that I have deliberately not included universities with medical schools in my figures in an attempt to compare like with like. In light of those figures, the question must be asked: why are students at the university of Luton each allocated £800 less than those at the university of Hertfordshire, which is located in the neighbouring county, and more than £1,300 less than in York, where costs are much lower?
As I have said, I accept that analysis of the raw data has its limitations, because of the differences in course mix from university to university. Therefore, I shall cite some figures calculated by Dr. Peter Knight, vice-chancellor of the university of Central England, which were published in The Times Higher Educational Supplement in January this year. Dr. Knight's figures take into account different course types by comparing the allocations over all subjects in all universities and analysing the funding for each subject at each university compared with the average.
Two features of Dr. Knight's analysis are particularly striking. First, the new universities that have rapidly increased their student numbers in recent years—such as Luton, Bournemouth, Anglia, Humberside and Derby—have exceptionally low allocations of HEFCE funding for teaching compared with other universities. Secondly, the new universities fare worse than the old universities in funding terms.
I could make conjecture about why that is the case; suffice it to say that a formula that can lead to Imperial college receiving £998 more per student than the university of Luton, even after allowing for subject mix, when the average funding for full-time students is £1,600, represents a huge variation. If the allocation for research is added to that for teaching, the variation becomes almost obscene. I believe that those variations are indefensible. They are a strong indication that the formula for allocating money to universities needs to be reviewed, with special reference to the proportion of the total funding allocated according to student numbers.
It is a credit to the new universities, such as Luton, that they are able to reach the required quality standards despite their relative underfunding, but that could lead to problems in the longer term. It will certainly not allow on-going investment in and further development of the new universities. In that context, it must be remembered that the new universities to which I am principally referring were colleges of higher education until very recently, and, as such, have historically been the poor relations of higher education compared with the old universities and with those colleges that became polytechnics in the 1970s.
Therefore, they start off at a low base with regard to equipment, facilities and spare cash for investment. They are, quite correctly, putting all their resources into maintaining the quality of their teaching and the teaching environment. However, it is essential that they receive a fairer slice of the cake if they are to maintain and develop their standards.
The HEFCE recognises that there are inequities in the formula, by applying harsher efficiency gains to the more generously funded universities. However, it is estimated that that method will take between 15 and 20 years to narrow the current range of funding for teaching to within 5 per cent. of the average. As an aside, I add that it is just as well the new universities did not take 15 to 20 years to respond to the Government's initiatives to increase student numbers, or we would still be a long way short of our target.
To add insult to injury, the recent allocations to universities incorporated a sum of £26.6 million across the whole higher education sector, under the heading "Non-Consolidated Core Funding". Those funds were originally allocated to fund growth, but as student numbers are now consolidating rather than expanding, the HEFCE decided to distribute the sum pro rata to core funds for teaching.
Therefore, there was money in the budget to allow the HEFCE to address the current inequity of funding, but it chose instead to reinforce that inequity. I simply cannot believe that that was in any way an informed decision, especially when one considers that the money was originally allocated for growth. Surely it would have been fairer to allocate the extra funds according to past growth, as the high-growth universities are the ones currently adversely affected by the funding formula.
The HEFCE was set up as an independent body to allocate funds to universities, and it is right that the Minister should be legally precluded from interfering in HEFCE allocations to individual universities. However, I believe that it is the Government's duty to ensure that all their policies are fair. Therefore, they would be within their rights to question the formula used by the HEFCE to allocate teaching funds, which obviously does not give enough weight to student numbers.
Modifying the formula for teaching in higher education to ensure that it is driven by student numbers would be entirely consistent with the Government's policies in other areas. The local management of schools formula for allocating budgets to schools must, by law, be at least 80 per cent. based on pupil numbers—and quite rightly so. The amount of money that a school requires is dependent mainly on the number of pupils who attend that school.
The health reforms have also ensured that money follows the patient, and thus have led to major improvements in the health care offered in areas such as Bedfordshire. It is simply wrong that the same principle does not apply to allocating teaching funds in the higher education sector, as the costs for teaching relate mainly to the number of students.
The Minister has already announced that he intends to review the HEFCE formula this summer in order to ensure that it is appropriate for the current period of consolidation. I trust that he will ensure that the review removes the current inequities in teaching funding—especially to those new universities which have more than played their part in increasing student numbers to the level required by the Government.
In conclusion, the expansion of participation rates in higher education must be considered one of the Government's greatest successes and a great achievement of which we should all be proud. Having increased student numbers to such unprecedented levels, we are now in a period of consolidation. I urge the Minister to take the opportunity presented by the review of the HEFCE formula to ensure that we have a formula that is fair, transparent and student driven and which thus allows all our universities—particularly the university of Luton—to go from strength to strength in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) for securing this opportunity to draw attention to the achievements of the university of Luton. I know that he and other hon. Members from Bedfordshire have taken a keen personal interest in the university's development.
I had the honour of speaking at the lunch to celebrate its inauguration as England's newest university in November 1993. I was pleased then, as I am now, to congratulate Luton on its remarkable progress from college to university in a relatively short period. I know that it is the result of a great deal of hard work. I recognise the university's academic achievements and its success in providing greater access to higher education along the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend.
He raises important questions about funding for the university of Luton and for universities and colleges in general. He correctly acknowledges that they are also connected to wider questions about the nature of the relationships between Ministers, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the universities and colleges. I shall refer to those relationships before talking about funding specifically.
At the heart of the relationship between Ministers, the funding council and the universities and colleges are the principles of institutional independence and academic freedom. University autonomy is a central feature of our higher education system. It is protected in law. Ministers are barred by statute from interfering in funding allocations to individual institutions and from setting criteria for the admission of students, the selection of staff or the content of courses.
The Government set the overall level of public funding for higher education in light of what the country can afford, the higher education funding councils throughout


the United Kingdom distribute grants to institutions within the context of Government policy, and the institutions decide how those funds should be spent according to their own priorities. The system protects the independence of universities and colleges. It gives them the freedom to experiment and innovate, and to gear their provision to changing needs.
Therefore, the Government do not direct the higher education system; they provide a framework within which the providers of higher education can respond to the needs of users, and they also ensure that the sector receives a fair share of public funds, as my hon. Friend graciously acknowledged.
I am also grateful to him for highlighting the success of our higher education system and acknowledging the part played by public funds in helping to secure it. Higher education has been one of the fastest growing public expenditure programmes in recent years. Nearly £5 billion will be available to English universities and colleges in 1995–96 through funding council grant and tuition fees. Student support will add another £1.5 billion. That follows successive real-terms increases in funding.
The spending growth in public funds has been accompanied by rapid expansion in student numbers. As my hon. Friend said, participation of young people in higher education now stands at a record level of more than 30 per cent. and the number of mature students has risen dramatically. It is a remarkable achievement. That it has been accomplished with significant real improvements in productivity, while maintaining quality is a testament to the resourcefulness of our universities and colleges.
However, expansion has imposed significant demands on the taxpayer. It is now widely recognised that there is a limit to the amount which the taxpayer can be expected to pay for higher education. Against that background, we announced in the 1992 autumn statement a period of consolidation in student numbers.
Our current expenditure plans assume an increase of 22,000 full-time equivalent student numbers between 1994–95 and 1995–96 and provide for participation in higher education to be maintained at around 30 per cent. up to 1997–98. We have asked the HEFCE to ensure that those numbers are not exceeded, and it has decided to achieve that by setting maximum numbers of award holders for each institution.
Our expenditure plans for 1996–97 and beyond will be announced later this year in the 1995 Budget. For the longer term, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has set in train a review of higher education which is considering issues relating to the purpose of higher education and its future size and shape. We have had more than 100 responses from different organisations to our consultation exercise earlier this year, and we are carefully analysing them all.
Within the overall funding provided by the Government, the HEFCE is responsible for distributing grant funds to different institutions. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), set out broad guidance to the HEFCE in 1992, when it was established. The guidance concentrated on the key aims which its funding methods should meet and the particular issues to take into account.
In short, those are to secure greater efficiency, to relate funding to quality, to maintain the diversity of missions of institutions and to secure stability of funding. Further guidance is given each year in an annual grant letter announcing the outcome of the public expenditure survey.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, however, Ministers do not seek to influence the detail of the funding council's funding methods or its allocations. Under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, while the Secretary of State for Education may attach terms and conditions to her grant to the HEFCE, they may not relate to the funding allocations to individual institutions.
The HEFCE has taken on responsibility for an enlarged higher education sector with a diverse range of institutions. It has worked hard, in consultation with universities and colleges, to develop funding mechanisms that reward efficiency, but secure as much stability as possible in funding year to year.
It is a measure of the HEFCE's success that those mechanisms have enabled the sector to adjust to the transition from expansion to consolidation without undue turbulence. That is particularly important in the current climate, as we are asking institutions to make continuing efficiency gains within tight budgets.
The HEFCE's funding method is applied to all institutions according to the same general principles, although individual institutions will, of course, have different allocations. Grant funding is mostly for research and teaching, although there is some non-formula funding for expenditure which cannot fit easily into a general funding formula. There is also capital funding. Nearly all the research funding is allocated by a formula which reflects quality ratings measured in periodic research assessment exercises.
The majority of the HEFCE's funds for teaching is allocated to a core which guarantees institutions a high percentage of the previous year's funding, provided that they recruit agreed student numbers. The average unit of council funding is calculated by reference to the previous core funding provided by the council and the number of students recruited by an institution. It is determined separately for each academic subject category, level of study and mode of attendance.
Institutions that have higher average units of funding will have higher annual efficiency gains applied to their core funding than those with lower average units of funding. The remainder of the funding council's funds for teaching is allocated to the margin, which is targeted on specific activities. Institutions which have lower efficiency gains will receive a proportionately larger share of formula-based allocations of marginal funding.
I believe that Dr. Peter Knight, in the article to which my hon. Friend referred, acknowledged the HEFCE's funding method for teaching to be even-handed between long-established institutions and new universities, and it noted that the level of grant funding for teaching that an institution receives from the HEFCE is related largely to its own decisions on student recruitment. I understand that the HEFCE has replied to Dr. Knight's article, pointing out that, in respect of the variations between institutions in the average units of council funding for the same subject, the option of providing the same funding for each subject to all institutions was rejected, following consultation with the institutions themselves.
Those, such as Luton, that have chosen to increase student numbers significantly in recent years will have lower average units of council funding but higher total levels of teaching funding, taking into account funding council grants and tuition fees, than would otherwise have been the case.
It is worth stressing that the funding council does not decide how universities and college run their own affairs. Institutions decide how to deploy their total public and private resources, in the light of their individual missions and their particular development plans. Whatever their decisions, all institutions must manage within the resources available to them.
In the current period of consolidation, the HEFCE is setting maximum numbers of awards for each institution in order to ensure that the sector does not exceed the student numbers for which we have provided in our expenditure plans. In setting maximum numbers, the funding council has taken account of the rate of in-built growth in student numbers within each institution. I accept that that will inevitably mean that some institutions will not be able to continue to expand as they may have wished, but I am sure that the House will appreciate the reasons for the decisions on public expenditure that underlie our current policy.
Equally, I appreciate the university of Luton's desire to secure the level of funding it believes it needs to pursue its plans, but, as I have explained, funding allocations to individual institutions are the responsibility of the HEFCE, not Ministers. It would not, therefore, be right for me to offer a view about the funding allocation to Luton or any other university or college. If any institution is unhappy with the funding it receives from the HEFCE, it should discuss the matter with the funding council.
I believe that the HEFCE's chief executive has met the vice-chancellor of Luton university and his colleagues on a number of occasions. The university will therefore have been able to make its case directly to the funding council. That is clearly the way forward, but I shall be happy to pass on the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend today to the council.
I should clarify that the council, not Ministers, is currently reviewing its funding methodology, and will be consulting institutions about its plans. The review is instigated and managed by the funding council itself. Naturally, institutions which favour particular changes of any kind will be able to express their views as part of the consultation process, and I hope that they will.
I hope that I have made clear that the financial position of each institution depends largely on its own decisions on recruitment and management, which is as it should be. Although I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in and enthusiasm for the university of Luton, Ministers have properly set the funding framework, but are not and should not be in the business of instructing the funding council, or of telling individual institutions how to run their affairs in their own circumstances, using the resources available to them.

Low Income Statistics

Mr. Frank Field: We go from hefty to low income statistics in one jump, if not in one move.
I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the Social Security Select Committee's reports on low income statistics. Given that the Under-Secretary is present, I hope that we may take the debate a few stages further. If it had been taking place 160 years ago, the Prime Minister would be in his seat on the Treasury Bench to initiate it. Robert Peel believed that one had to have not only a feel for politics but a passion to know what was happening in evolving Victorian Britain. He thought that it was a prime job of government to provide information on which politicians could make sensible decisions and that would provide the expanding electorate with a more informed view of policies debated in the Chamber. It is a double compliment to the Minister that the present Administration feel that he is a proper substitute for Robert Peel. Anybody who has been through the baptism of fire of the Child Support Agency knows of the respect and affection in which the House holds the Minister in respect of that and other topics.
On the Victorian theme, if one walks along the Library Corridor, one sees local government reports for every year. At the turn of each calendar year, reports were published by the House containing information on how the Poor Law was working. If there had been a set-to and a punch-up in the Peckham workhouse, the inquiry report would be included in the year's annual returns to the House. What people ate and their comings and goings to and from the Poor Law were faithfully recorded.
It is a strange indictment of our society, given how much we have invested in modern technology, that we probably know less about what is happening in our society than the Victorians knew about what was happening in theirs. That is a double disadvantage because we need a basis for rational debate, and society is again changing rapidly. One has only to look at the labour market and at fiscal and benefit policies to know that it is crucial to have an up-to-date picture of what is happening, so that policies can be shaped according to the real world, not according to the fantasy world that politicians, sadly, too often inhabit.
The budget for which the Minister and his colleagues are responsible is approaching £90,000 million and is the largest single item of Government expenditure. Although taxpayers have, until now, with not too grudging approval, agreed to those funds, they know as we do that one reason for spending £90,000 million is concern for people at the bottom of society. Under Harold Wilson's Government, an Administration began to collect data on low-income statistics. The frequency of their publication was increased so that, at the 1979 general election, those statistics made an annual appearance—albeit many years after the year to which they applied.
For reasons that I do not need to give, the Government decided to set aside that series of statistics and to introduce data on incomes below average earnings. The Select Committee took a different view and has continued at regular intervals to publish what would have been the low income statistics series, had the Government continued it. As I have commented before, the Government would have a better record to put before the electorate if they had stuck with the old series.
Both series are valuable, but that value is limited. Both provide a snapshot of people on low incomes at any one time. The information contained in the Government's official data on households having below-average incomes far exceeds that which we expected to gain from the low-income families data. Certain information given in the series set aside cannot be obtained from the data on households having below-average incomes. Although the Government publish information on the numbers of people below income support level who do not claim for reasons other than non-eligibility, the low-income series gives a much more comprehensive picture of the group that appears to be eligible and is not claiming and that which is below eligibility levels for income support but is not claiming for other reasons, such as ignorance of entitlement.
I hope that we shall spend most of our time debating not the old-fashioned snapshot approach but the urgency of obtaining information about what is happening to the same people over time. We have a lot of information about what is happening to groups at certain income levels over time, but not about whether the same people form those groups. If Robert Peel were participating in this debate, he would say that the Government are setting off with maps that are equivalent to those of the world drawn up by people who believed that it was flat, when what is needed are maps that take into account the fact that the world is round. Instead of having Brownie snapshots of income levels at any one time, we need a movie camera to keep a gaze on particular groups over time.
In the 1970s, the new earnings survey was used to provide such information. In one particular year, the lowest decile was taken out and that group was followed for the next five years. Of course, some people were lost from the survey, and at the end of the five years it was not complete. However, we learned that it was wrong to think that, because someone is poor or on a low income now, he will be in the same position next year—let alone in five years' time. The new earnings survey showed an enormous movement of people up the income scale. Some people bounced up from the bottom to the second-from-top decile in the space of five years.
Part of the emphasis in this debate should be on calling attention to the importance of data that look at the same people over time. One is grateful to the Institute for Fiscal Studies for producing such data recently, showing that the poor form not a homogeneous group, but one that varies. There is a flip side to the cheerful news that that brings to the Government, who can rightly point out that, at any one time, the poor are not the same group. Of most concern to the House is the group in the snapshot that remain poor over a long period.
I wish to make two pleas. First, under the old supplementary benefit system, returns were made which showed us how many people claimed benefit not only for one or two years, but for three, four, five, 10 and 15 years, and more. Since the introduction of income support, there have been no equivalent data. Instead, there has been a grouping of everyone who has claimed for more than two years. Is it possible to include additional information in our returns on income support?
I move on to my second plea. I congratulate the Government on the family resources survey, which will begin our movie camera approach to what is happening to poorer people and richer people, but surely we should have regard to the three great cohort studies that were

initiated after the war, in 1946, 1958 and 1970. We should ascertain to what extent we can build on to their retrieval of information, given that there is still contact with most of the people in each of the samples. There are questions that I would like to be answered.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I know that my intervention will go slightly beyond the focus of the debate. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to consider establishing a framework of successive cohort studies every seven years, whether in the United Kingdom or throughout the European Union, with a return every seven years, so that we are aware of changes within the changing picture?

Mr. Field: The cohort studies were initiated by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who for a long time was a Member of Parliament. If he were still alive—sadly, he is not—there might have been some follow-up studies consequent on the 1970 study. I agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
We need desperately to know by what exits people leave benefit and gain work. If they gain work, is it full-time or part-time? If it is part-time work, is that what they wanted or did they want more? If they get a part-time job, are they able soon to move up the rungs to a full-time job? If that full-time job is a low-paid one, how do they get themselves into much better paid positions within the same firm or another firm?
There is a great need for answers to the questions that I have posed. There may be exits from poverty which we have not considered and which we need to encourage once we have the relevant information. There is an obvious place at which to start, and it is not the new study that the Government have commissioned, on which I congratulate them. We should make the maximum use of the three cohort studies which were initiated in the earlier post-war period, which could begin to answer the questions that I have asked.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I shall make only a brief speech, because I am anxious to hear the Minister's response to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
I am struck by the fact that social security expenditure is at record levels. Yet one of the major worries in British society is what might be called social insecurity. Paradoxically, there is an equation between social security expenditure and social insecurity. Pensions and child benefit, within the social security budget, provide evidence of social security. Much of the rest of that budget—for example, expenditure on unemployment and expenditure through income support on one-parent families—is, in a sense, evidence of insecurity in society.
One of the difficulties for Ministers in the Department of Social Security, whether now or in future, is assessing the forces within our economy and society that make for social insecurity. It is their task to determine the best way in which to attack some of those forces. That challenge points to policies within the public sector that are often the province of Departments other than the Department of Social Security.
It is my plea that there should be a coherent approach to family policy. As a new member of the Select Committee on Social Security, it strikes me that, while


some of the data on low incomes are available because of factors that are well known, especially unemployment, increasingly family poverty wears a newer face. Much of that poverty is the result of the growth of one-parent families. Whatever we say about that growth, we should all be concerned that there is almost an equation between one-parent families and poverty.
We know that seven of every 10 one-parent families depend on income support. Of the never-married single parents with children—they constitute one of the most vulnerable and fastest-growing groups—85 per cent. are on income support. Our expenditure on income support is very much a symptom of insecurity and family breakdown. One of the great challenges in social policy is to determine how we should start to shift resources away from breakdown—in other words, spending on breakdown—to investing in families on income support.
We have heard something about data, and the relevant reports are full of data. They relate to millions of children within families on income support or with incomes just above that level. I shall mention a one-parent family who came to see me at my surgery—a young woman of 21 years with a two-year-old boy. The mother and her child are entirely dependent on the state in the sense that they have a local authority flat—it is a pretty poor one that is badly heated—and are on income support. The child has asthma and it is often necessary for the mother to call in the national health service. That family is an example of great dependency on the state.
The family I have described, and many others like it, are costing the country dear. The nation is contributing billions of pounds to assist vulnerable families. At the same time, the standard of living of the individual family to whom I have referred is extremely poor. I was especially concerned because the mother has great ambitions. She told me that she did not want to be on income support. She wants a job. She told me that she wanted to be a traffic warden. That is a brave decision, given Croydon's traffic circumstances. She told me of her idea and she wanted support to help her secure that job.
I replied, "When you deal with the Department of Social Security or any other Government agency, has anyone talked to you about your ambition, including the training that you might need to become a traffic warden or to take on another job? Has anyone discussed with you child care implications?" Sadly, the answer was no. That was partly because, being on income support, she did not have to report for work. There was no requirement that she should search for work. Under the current system, there was no package of training, advice about child care or counselling.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will take up the wider aspects of social security and tell us when, at last, the Government will get to grips with family policy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. Over about 15 minutes we have ranged extremely wide, from Sir Robert Peel through to pleas for a coherent family policy. There has been reference to Lone

families and statistics. As the House knows, I could cheerfully debate each item for far longer than 15 minutes. I shall do my best to confine my response.
I make no claim to be Sir Robert Peel. I do, however, come from the same place as Sir Robert. We are both from Bury in Lancashire, where Sir Robert's tower still stands overlooking the town. He is remembered with great affection and his statue is in the town square to celebrate what he did in terms of the corn laws and feeding the people. He is especially well remembered.
I welcome the opportunity to debate and to discuss low income statistics. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, it is vital that we have reliable and up-to-date information about those on low incomes. It is important that we are able to identify which groups on low income are most at risk and the circumstances that produce those risks. There has been a variety of statistics. Probably the most well known of the current statistics is that set which is known as households below average income. Those statistics provide us with the overview that we now use. The statistics are not used alone. I shall be making reference to other studies and talking about other information that we can use. I hope that my remarks will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—I have in mind especially his final remarks.
It is, of course, entirely within the aim of government to have as coherent a family and social policy as possible, bearing in mind the complexity of family structure now, and particularly the change in relation to lone parenthood, which we have discussed a number of times in this place.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the report from the board of social responsibility of the Church of England? Unlike the headlines in the papers—broadsheet and tabloid—and reports from the BBC, that report accurately says that four out of five children are brought up by two-parent families, that two thirds of lone parent families were not single parents to begin with and that, by having respect for families and for family responsibilities, and by building up their confidence and their competence, we are likely to have fewer people falling into the low income statistics, and more coming out faster.

Mr. Burt: I welcome the analysis that is contained in the report, of which I have read something. I do not necessarily agree with all its conclusions and I do not necessarily agree with its failure to promote a particular form of family as the ideal. The report is right to look at the complexity of family life today. It is right to seek an end to condemnation, but one can look forward to an ideal of family structure without necessarily condemning those who are on their way towards it.
To remove completely the aim and aspiration of a married relationship does not seem correct to me, but that is a matter for the Church, and no doubt we shall be hearing much more about that. Its attempt to analyse, and to supplement the analysis of, the complexity of family life that we have today is extremely relevant and it attempts to deal with the world as it is. It is the Government's job to deal with the world as it is and families as they are, but, if it is anyone's job to say where they would like the world to be and where they would like people to be, I believe that it is for Christians and for the Church to make a statement in relation to that as well.
The households below average income statistics are based on the family expenditure survey. It looks at the incomes of individuals on the assumption that each person shares the total income of the household. Using that information, it estimates the pattern of incomes of the United Kingdom and how it changes over time.
The HBAI provides information on how individuals fare, relative to their counterparts in the year of analysis, by looking at the number of individuals below various fractions of average income. It also allows comparisons to be made with earlier time periods by looking at numbers of individuals below fixed income thresholds. Income growth is estimated for the population, broken down by position in the income distribution, economic and family types. Information on who makes up the low income groups is also provided.
Over recent years, the HBAI has also included information on those with above-average incomes. This provides a complete picture of the changing income distribution. It is an evolving analysis that seeks to shed new light on aspects of income distribution, but it does suffer from the problem of being a snapshot. I shall say a little about longitudinal studies in a moment. I shall outline briefly some of the results from the latest edition, which bear some repetition. They were more positive than negative. The results show that the average income of British households has risen by around 38 per cent. Increases were not confined to a few top earners. The average income of all family types reported on in the HBAI has increased.
Pensioners have fared particularly well—the average income of pensioner couples, after housing costs, has increased by 53 per cent. in real terms. There are also far fewer pensioners in the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution—only 8 per cent., compared to 31 per cent. in 1979. It is also encouraging to note that average income has increased for the unemployed and for those in full-time work on low pay.
Income has increased for the majority of the working population, although there continues to be a dispersion of earnings, probably reflecting a shift towards skilled labour and an improvement in labour market flexibility. Even the least well-off have been able to improve their living standards, as various studies showing the increase in consumer durables among the bottom 20 per cent. have shown over time. However, the results for the lowest income group need to be interpreted carefully—I think that the House understands that better than some analysts outside—particularly those for the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution.
There are two important considerations, of which the first is changes in composition. An increase in the number of people reporting low incomes can affect the average income of the bottom decile and cause an apparent reduction, even where incomes are higher than those of individuals in a similar position in 1979. Changes in employment are especially important there. Since 1992, unemployment has fallen by nearly 600,000, but the snapshot of society at the time that the statistics were compiled naturally reflects the higher unemployment figure then, and the number of people reporting low incomes, especially the self-employed, has had its impact.
Secondly, incomes are not always a reliable indicator of true living standards for lower income groups. Of course, the bottom decile includes many people on low incomes and correspondingly low living standards, but it

also includes, especially at the very bottom, many people, often self-employed, reporting very low incomes but with relatively high expenditure. The number of self-employed reporting zero or negative incomes has increased significantly. However, of the 150,000 self-employed reporting no income, around 60 per cent spend more than the average for the population as a whole.
That casts some doubt on the bottom decile statistics, particularly in relation to those who are in occupations where reporting a lower income than one might have is rather an advantage. The bottom decile spends more than the second decile and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the expenditure of the bottom income decile, after housing costs, has risen by about 30 per cent. since 1979.
I now come to the longitudinal studies, and I pay tribute to the IFS work. When individual fortunes are followed through, a different picture emerges from the snapshot. Recent work, again by the IFS, shows that up to a half of those in the bottom tenth of the income distribution in 1991 had left it by the following year, and for those who had left, income rose by 45 per cent. Even among those who remained, income rose slightly over the year. That research, therefore, tells us what the snapshot does not: the poor are not, as they are so often portrayed, a stagnant group with gradually declining living standards. It also shows that, over relatively short periods, there is a significant movement into and out of the lowest decile of the income distribution.
We are, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead has pointed out, very aware of the need to complement analyses like the HBAI with information about how the position of individuals changes over time. I hope that some details about our current programme of research will be of help to the hon. Gentleman and the House.
The Department's current programme of research includes a number of projects, both longitudinal and cross-sectional. First, analysis of the British household panel survey continues. It is a longitudinal study of a nationally represented sample of more than 5,000 households in Great Britain and involves an annual survey of each adult member in the household, making a total of more than 10,000 individual interviews.
The aim is to collect and analyse evidence of the experiences of a representative panel of the British population over a number of years, to improve our understanding of the incidence, pattern, duration, interrelation and impact of everyday issues and experiences and to examine how individuals, families and households confront them. That is precisely the information that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West was looking for to deal with some of the complex situations that arrive in our surgeries every day.
Secondly, work based around the national child development study continues. That longitudinal study follows the lives of all those living in Great Britain who were born between 3 and 9 March 1958. It was started by the National Children's Bureau, which carried out a follow-up survey of the 16,500 people in that group when the children reached age seven in 1965, and continued with further surveys at ages 11, 16 and 23. The most recent wave was conducted by the City university in 1991, when the respondents were aged 33.
We clearly intend to incorporate that information, including the information that I mentioned earlier by the IFS, into our work over time. As we get more information, we shall bring that in.
The new earnings survey panel was mentioned earlier. I am glad to say that the longitudinal data from it are becoming available and provide similar information on the mobility of earnings to that available from another source, but the survey has a less full coverage than information from contribution records, which are already being investigated at the hon. Gentleman's request. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that we intend to use information from national insurance contributions records to track changes in circumstances. A database is being developed that will show the employment history of a representative sample of adults. The importance of employment patterns in changing incomes suggests that that data will provide valuable insights.
All that will provide us with a wealth of valuable data, but data alone will not help those who are on a low income. The important point is to identify the main causes of low income and to take positive action to help people to improve their circumstances. The clear message from the HBAI and from other information we have is that the rise in unemployment, changes in the labour market, and particularly the widening distribution of earnings, have had a major impact on the distribution of incomes. Another significant factor has been the increase in the number of families with children becoming unemployed or dependent on social security benefits.
From information, anecdotal and based on survey, the Government have deduced that getting people back into work is the very best thing that we can do for those who are relatively poor. Hence all the work that has been done in recent years—the improvements in family credit, with changes in hours and disregards, and the work done to reduce national insurance contributions at the lowest level—and the work being done—in October 1996, an in-work benefit for single people and couples with children will be piloted, and the back-to-work bonus will be introduced in October 1996. All those measures aim to bring people back into work.
We shall therefore continue to use the information on low income statistics to do the job that Governments should do best—that is, to ensure that people move out of poverty and into a position where they can be truly self-sufficient, contributing not only to their own self-esteem but to society at large.

East Jerusalem

2 pm

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss important events concerning the Holy City during the month of May. I am grateful, too, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for coming along to reply to this brief debate. Its purpose, of course, is to give him the chance to give the House an account of the Government's response to those events and to give us his thoughts on where we all go from here.
The House knows only too well that east Jerusalem was conquered by the Israeli army in 1967 from the Arabs and has therefore been occupied territory since that date; thus, it comes under the fourth Geneva convention of 1948.
Occupied territory is a temporary phenomenon. I am just as opposed to other countries conquering and occupying by force of arms other people's territory against the wishes of their populations in 1995 as was my father's generation in western Europe in 1940–41. It is to me desperately important that the occupying power behaves impeccably. Alack, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be well aware that that has not been the case in east Jerusalem.
A few weeks ago, led by, I believe, the outspoken mayor of Jerusalem, Mr. Olmert, the Israeli Government decided to acquire 131 acres of Arab-owned land in east Jerusalem. There is some dispute about whether it was all Arab-owned land, but I think that the Foreign Office broadly accepts that figure.
Undoubtedly, the intention has been for some time to reduce the Arab population of east Jerusalem, to build them out and to have de facto annexation of Greater Jerusalem. Undoubtedly also, the intention is thus to ensure that east Jerusalem is never the capital of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine.
That is incredibly foolish. I think that the Israeli public—the majority of whom apparently go along with that policy—have totally misunderstood the resentment that any such policy, if carried out to the full, would bring to the area.
There was an interesting letter in The Independent on 20 May written by supporters of the International Campaign for Jerusalem. It said:
Whatever piece of paper Mr. Arafat may be cajoled into signing, and whatever our individual views, the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim worlds will never accept the permanent loss of Jerusalem…What Israel and the US now seem bent on doing is to condemn Jew and Arab to relentless conflict for final domination.
Those are rather grim words.
The matter was appropriately brought before the United Nations Security Council. Alack, Madeleine Albright, the US permanent representative in New York, on behalf of the Clinton Administration, cast a veto over the resolution being proposed. That resolution was based on six other Security Council resolutions going back as far as 1968.
The ambassador said that the words went too far. On the contrary, it was a mild resolution in the rather heated circumstances. It called on the Israeli Government to rescind the seizing of the 131 acres and called on them to desist taking any such action in the future.
The Americans have done this before. They have been the big friend of Israel when it has run into trouble with the international community. But I hope that the House


will take grave exception to the veto that was cast. It was, after all, President Clinton who basked in the glory of that famous White House ceremony when he persuaded a slightly reluctant Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to shake hands with Mr. Yasser Arafat. How can the Americans now be regarded as fair referees between Arab and Jew after that veto?
Going beyond the middle east, there is the basic matter of international law. If we do not have international law, we have international anarchy. We have illegal acts, including terrorism, and we have a rule of might is right. I cannot believe that the United States Administration would for a moment wish to support those particular activities.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, under that declaration of principles between the Palestinians and the Israeli Government, the ultimate status of Jerusalem was deferred until next year. That was appropriate. But to make a very obvious point, it is totally wrong for the Israeli Government, having reached that agreement with the Palestinians, then to try to change the fundamentals by building the Arab population out of east Jerusalem. That is deceitful and disgraceful and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will declare that that is his view, too.
Where do we go from here? Mr. Rabin faced a potentially humiliating defeat in the Knesset. The Arab and communist parties and the Likud party joined forces and there was a real danger of his Government going down. Therefore, reluctantly, he decided not to go ahead with that seizure of Arab land. There were general words that such activity would not take place in the future. I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance. To what have the Israelis committed themselves on that point?
I have seen nothing, and no one has brought to my attention any reports, to show that Mr. Rabin thought that he had made a terrible mistake in going ahead with the seizure of Arab land but realised that he had badly treated his partners on the Arab side. Think of the position of King Hussein of Jordan, who has reached a separate agreement with Israel. He was facing a deep crisis at home in his domestic politics. Think of the position of Egypt or Syria. Both countries either have or may well have in the future very close relationships with Israel.
Will it be possible for the Palestinians and the Israelis to reach a final decision on the future of Jerusalem? We hope so. Many years ago, the late Lord Caradon wrote a pamphlet in which he suggested that Jerusalem should become an international city. When he gave me that pamphlet, I was not convinced, but as time has passed—although I am well aware that any such idea is anathema to both Jew and Arab—I have decided that it may provide the answer. Perhaps the problem could be kicked into touch for 50 years until relations between countries such as Israel, Jordan and Syria are on an even keel. The alternative, a continual row over Jerusalem, could prove extremely dangerous.
I am not entirely happy about leaving negotiations to the elected Government of Israel on one side and the Palestinian National Authority on the other. First, the balance is clearly unfair; secondly, the international community must be involved. Of course the 183 countries in the United Nations have views on the future of Jerusalem: it is not just a local middle east issue. How can my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister ensure that international pressure is brought to bear on the future of the Holy City?

Mr. Ernie Ross: I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for allowing me to speak. The Conservative and Labour middle east councils have worked together for some years to help both the Palestinians and the Israelis to solve their problems through dialogue, but we have been increasingly frustrated by the American Government's determination to favour one side throughout the long, sorry process. The Israeli Government's veto of the Security Council resolution prompted us to engage in this short debate.
From the outset—ever since the signing of the Oslo agreement—hon. Members have supported the Palestinians and Israelis who have committed themselves to the diplomatic peace process. Today's debate is important, but its usefulness or otherwise will depend on whether we can establish a suitable approach to the central and sensitive question of Jerusalem. I am anxious to hear the Minister's response.
A meeting between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal middle east councils and a representative of the American embassy was recently called to discuss the American veto of the Security Council resolution. We were anxious to impress on the American representative the importance that we attach to international law—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath—in the search for a successful outcome to the middle east peace process. That applies particularly to the question of Jerusalem and its status as an international city under international law.
As recent events have demonstrated, controversy over the Israeli development of Jerusalem in defiance of international law poses unacceptable risks to the peace process. The purpose of the international consensus on the status of the city was to avoid such circumstances. The law governing Jerusalem provides a holding position pending negotiations and agreement on a final settlement; importantly, it also provides the best way of shoring up faith and confidence in the diplomatic peace process during these difficult times.
During a symposium organised by the Conservative and Labour middle east councils in London in 1992 to discuss the role of international law in the context of the peace process, Dr. Rashid Khalidi made precisely that point. He said that the failure of Israel and the international community to implement the principles of international law
daily brings home to the Palestinian population under occupation their powerlessness, as well as the fact Israel is unrestrained by any external power or law, and that even the super-power sponsor of the negotiating process is unwilling or unable to restrain Israel from such violations, despite the duty to do so as a co-signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. This in turn reinforces the profound scepticism among the Palestinian population regarding this negotiating process, which in turn is grist to the mill of the minority opposed in principle to the process.
As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said, the declaration of principles—which we are anxious to see fully implemented—was clearly constructed in such a way as to leave the most sensitive and complex issues until the final stages of the negotiations. One of the main reasons for our concern about the Israelis' attempt to continue the annexation of land that is in dispute—particularly land in the Jerusalem area—is that it puts pressure on the peace process.
It is encouraging that Israel backed down in the face of international opposition to its recent plan to expropriate more land in east Jerusalem, despite the US veto of the proposed UN Security Council resolution condemning such a land grab. There are those—including people in Washington—who say that this is a bilateral process in which we, as an international community, must not interfere. I say that support for international law—and, indeed, for the United States' own letter of assurances sent to the Palestinians before the Madrid peace process began in 1991, stating that neither side should do anything on the ground to prejudice the final outcome of the talks—can only promote progress in the bilateral process involving Israel and the PLO. Only yesterday, there were signs of progress in the Cairo talks, with an unexpected number of additional powers being offered to the Palestinian National Authority.
All that augurs well for an agreement on redeployment by the 1 July deadline. It is crucial for the House to send a clear signal of support for the conduct of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue in the spirit and practice of reconciliation rather than against a background of confrontation, whether in Jerusalem, Gaza or the west bank.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on raising this issue. They both have considerable experience and knowledge of the subject, and, as it happens, they nearly always agree. I shall try to respond to their specific points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath began by reciting the recent history of a very ancient city. He is, of course, right to say that the fourth Geneva convention applies. He emphasised the importance of an occupying power's compliance with the convention, and I entirely agree. That is fundamentally important, and from time to time we have made precisely the same point to the Israeli Government.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dundee, West also focused on the Israeli Government's recent decision to expropriate 130-odd acres of land in and around east Jerusalem. My hon. Friend advanced the arguments against that expropriation very clearly. The British Government regarded the decision as a serious development; let me make it plain that we consider the settlements in the occupied territories in east Jerusalem to be illegal, and also to constitute a serious obstacle to any peace settlement.
The decision to expropriate was roundly condemned by the international community, and the United Kingdom joined—and joins—in that condemnation. I very much welcome the decision by the Israeli Cabinet not to proceed with the expropriation. I very much hope that that proposal is not brought forward again at any time in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath stated rightly that the status of east Jerusalem is to be left to the end of the negotiations. I believe that it is right

that it should be left to the end of the negotiations. I know that there has been a tendency, especially by the Palestinian negotiators, to seek to bring forward the question of the status of east Jerusalem to an earlier stage. I believe that such an approach would be an error and it is certainly inconsistent with the declaration of principles.
The plain fact is that an agreement on the status of east Jerusalem is going to be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. I do not believe that it is possible to achieve such an agreement unless substantial agreement is achieved on all the other matters. Therefore, I hope that all the parties to the negotiations will be ready and willing to stand by the principles already agreed and leave the status of east Jerusalem until the end.
I hope very much that it will possible to approach that question of status from the point of view that east Jerusalem should be made a focus for reconciliation rather than a subject of continuing conflict. I do not see how that is going to be achieved unless all the parties to the negotiations accept that a way has to be found of sharing Jerusalem. Quite what that way is, it seems to me, is not something for a British Minister to seek to identify in advance. It is a matter for negotiation by the parties to the negotiations.
I am absolutely clear in my own mind that it is wrong to seek to pre-empt any conclusion that might otherwise be possible by, for example, creating facts on the ground. Against that background, I certainly condemn any attempt to extend settlements in or around east Jerusalem. I say, too, to the Palestinians that they must not seek to pre-empt the decision in any way.
I am aware of the view of the Israeli Government that sharing Jerusalem will not be possible, that they are willing to provide access to the holy places but cannot go beyond that. That view is, of course, felt throughout the Likud, but is also a view expressed by almost all the Ministers in the present Israeli Government. My own belief is that such an approach will not provide the basis for a long-term, sustainable agreement.
I think that, if we are to see a settlement that will satisfy Palestinians and Arabs, it is going to have to be on the basis of some sharing of Jerusalem that goes beyond merely allowing access to holy places. As I say, it is not for a British Minister to seek to identify any particular model, but it is for us to commend the principles to those who participate in the negotiations, and that we will do.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West concluded his speech by referring to elections and redeployment. I share his view that this is a matter of enormous importance. I hope that it will be possible to come to an agreement around July on elections within the occupied territories and a redeployment of the Israeli defence forces away from residential areas or, at least, away from the most sensitive ones.
If the Palestinian authority is to have the kind of legitimacy that both we and, more important the Israelis wish to see—and, which, of course, th estinians wish to see—it must be underpinned by a tion In the absence of an election, that authority will not have the kind of authority and legitimacy that it requires to carry through the rather difficult decisions that it has to carry through.
It was partly this thinking that caused the Prime Minister to offer that the European Union should seek to co-ordinate the observing and monitoring of those elections. I am glad to say that the principle of that has been accepted and we see a fixed agreement to carry out the redeployment and to carry forward the elections as being a critical phase in the process of securing a final agreement. The European Union and the British Government in particular will seek to do all that they can to reinforce that part of this process.
2.25 pm
Sitting suspended.
2.30 pm
On resuming—
It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

PRIVATE BUSINESS

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Belize

Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security arrangements devised to safeguard the independent future of Belize. [25429]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Belize is an independent country within the Commonwealth. Since 1 January 1994, Belize has had responsibility for its own defence.

Mr. Davidson: Having withdrawn British troops from Belize, are the Minister and the Government satisfied that sufficient arrangements are in place to ensure that the territorial integrity of Belize is safe in the event of any external aggression? In particular, are there arrangements in place which will assist Belize in the event of substantial illegal migration affecting the territorial integrity of that state?

Mr. Davis: The Government do not believe that a renewed military threat is likely. The Guatemalan Government have made clear their intention to resolve their disputes peacefully through negotiation.
As to the ability to cope without the support of British forces, we agreed with the Government of Belize that the British garrison should be reduced to a training presence and that the Belize defence force would assume responsibility, as I said, on 1 January 1994. We have made it clear that we shall maintain our programme of assistance for the development of the BDF to sustain and improve the force's capability through the provision of loaned service personnel, equipment, training and advice. In addition, Belize continues to receive substantial amounts of British aid.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: One possible cause of instability in that area is, of course, the run-up to the presidential elections in Guatemala in October. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will make it clear to the Guatemalans that any playing with Belize would be extremely unhelpful because that country is a member of the United Nations and the Commonwealth and would get our full backing, and that we should like to see our warm relations with Guatemala extended and developed?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend, as ever, asks a wise question about Latin American affairs. We have maintained good relationships with Belize and Guatemala. Guatemala is clear about our stance with respect to Belize, and I think that that had a sizeable influence on their current position on the matter.

EU Council of Ministers

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his Department has to increase the transparency of decision-making in the European Union Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [25432]

Mr. David Davis: We will continue to press for more transparency in the Council's decision-making, building on the principles agreed during the United Kingdom presidency.

Mr. Barnes: In democracies, formal legislative decisions are made by Parliaments, with full details provided of their votes and the state of Bills and amendments. This place is full of volumes of documents listing such material, yet the Council of Ministers, which is effectively the Parliament of Europe, meets in secret and all we get from it are its final directives and decisions and, occasionally, a final vote, if a vote happens to take place. Is not there a long way to go before transparency, meeting democratic requirements, is introduced into the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Davis: The United Kingdom is interested in all practical improvements which command broad support in the Council. The hon. Gentleman does not give credit where credit is due. The achievements so far include routine publication of votes, wider public access to Commission and Council documents, full briefing of the press before and after meetings of the Council and some Council sessions being held in public and televised.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not this House a good place to start in achieving real accountability of the European Union Council of Ministers? In that context, could not my hon. Friend have come back from the ministerial meeting at Messina and made a statement to the House about the preparations for the intergovernmental conference? The stand that he took at Messina was welcome, and he should never fear to stand alone.

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for that compliment. Throughout the course of the next six months, there will be some 15 meetings of the reflections group and I shall ensure that a clear account of what I say at those meetings will be given in a written answer.

Rwanda

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his European Union counterparts regarding the situation in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement. [25433]

Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rwanda. [25434]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): Rwanda has been discussed on a regular basis in the European Union, most recently at the Development Affairs Council on 1 June attended by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker.

Mr. Enright: Since we beatified the blessed Baroness Chalker yesterday, I would not wish to canonise her today. Although I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the efforts that they have made in the European Union, in spite of quite disgraceful opposition, to continue to support Rwanda in the way that it is being supported, may I urge on them the necessity of taking to task the French Government for continuing to supply arms outside Rwanda to parties to the conflict and ask the Government to consult about that in the European Union?


In the context of Lomé, will the Government also take to task Zaire and South Africa who—equally—are supplying arms outside Rwanda to parties to the conflict?

Mr. Baldry: I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations. I am grateful that he has recognised that we have been taking a constructive role in trying to find a way forward for the resumption of sensible EU aid to Rwanda. Indeed, we have been taking a leading part in that effort. I hope that full resumption of EU aid will be possible in the very near future. Of course, in a situation such as that in Rwanda, armed groups wandering around the place do not help anyone. Certainly it behoves everyone in the international community to try to ensure that everyone behaves responsibly, supports the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and of peacekeepers in the region and does nothing else which may undermine the peace process taking place in Rwanda.

Ms Anderson: Does the Minister accept that reconciliation can be achieved only when those responsible for the genocide are brought to justice? Does he also accept that the identity of the ringleaders is widely known, as is their whereabouts? What pressure are the Government putting on African Governments to see that those war criminals are brought to justice?

Mr. Baldry: I do not think that there is any disagreement that those who committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law should be brought to account for their actions. That is exactly the reason why the United Kingdom Government sponsored the Security Council resolution establishing an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. As the hon. Lady says, bringing such people to trial is an essential pre-condition for efforts of reconciliation. We have been supporting the tribunal with funds and it will soon start its work. We clearly hope that, in the not too distant future, those who were responsible for some of the earlier atrocities will be brought to trial and to book, which will be part of the reconciliation process in Rwanda.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Returning to the question of arms and the arms embargo, is the Minister aware that human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch are concerned about the fact that arms are getting to former members of the Rwandan armed forces in refugee camps outside Rwanda? The suggestion is that Governments, individuals and organisations in France, South Africa and Zaire are actively involved in that process. Will the Minister and the Government, in supporting the retention of the United Nations role in Rwanda, press for the UN to have monitoring powers not only inside Rwanda but outside, to ensure that arms do not get through to would-be combatants? If that does not happen, we face the prospect of a return to intertribal conflict and the resumption of the genocide that the world saw last year.

Mr. Baldry: I think that I answered that point fairly fully in reply to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and there is nothing else that I can say on the subject. The facts speak for themselves. We have been determined to try to ensure that there is the maximum number of international and UN monitors, and we have been among the foremost nations in helping to fund those monitors, outside as well as inside Rwanda. That will make a considerable contribution, because what is going on will be more widely known.

EU Reflections Group

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the main items in his briefing instructions to the Minister of State as the United Kingdom representative for the start of the EU reflections group proceedings this month. [25435]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The Prime Minister set out the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference in his speech in Leiden, and in the House on 1 March. That is the basis on which the Minister of State will operate in the study group. The study group is designed to prepare options for the conference; the start of the IGC itself is at least seven months away.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a normal enthusiasm for the European Union does not reduce our ability to look after our own vital national interests? Quite the reverse, it enhances that ability. In that context, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Minister of State will be as enthusiastic as he is about our membership, and will not be like Mr. Bretherton at the original Messina conference?

Mr. Hurd: We want to make a success of British membership of the European Union, and that means that in preparing for the IGC there are certain specific things that we aim to achieve and to persuade others to achieve, and certain other things that we say that we shall not do, and would not accept if others put them forward. That is the line that my hon. Friend has begun to set out in the reflections group, and it will continue through the IGC.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that under the existing treaty of union signed at Maastricht the obligation to change or even to review the existing treaty is extremely limited? Can he tell us where any obligation to change is listed, if it is listed at all? Anything wider than that on the wide topic that has been the subject of many documents is not an obligation under the existing treaty. Indeed, it is outwith the terms, so is it not therefore optional for all members of the Union?

Mr. Hurd: No member state can be compelled to accept any change in the Maastricht treaty. That treaty foreshadowed certain subjects that would need to be considered again, but it did not impose an obligation on any member state to accept any change.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any real point in proceeding with the meetings of the reflections group at this stage, when the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic has made it clear that he will not agree with any decisions coming out of the IGC until after our general election, when he fervently hopes that the Labour party will be in power and will give him everything that he wants?

Mr. Hurd: Despite the blandishments of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in Bonn recently, I have the rather strong impression that that is not the Federal Chancellor's view. However, the British people will make the decision. We are entirely relaxed about the timing of the IGC. As the Prime Minister said in the speech that I have already mentioned, the Maastricht treaty has been in force for little more than 18 months, and it is rather soon


to reconsider it all. The treaty says that the review should start in 1996, so that will have to happen, but it does not lay down when the review should end.

Mr. Robin Cook: Did the Foreign Secretary see the discussion paper from the Fresh Start group, which claims a membership of 50 Tory Members? Did he note its recommendation that his objective at the forthcoming IGC should be to create a crisis with the other members? Would the Foreign Secretary like to express his personal opinion on those of his colleagues who want a crisis with those nations to whom we sell most of our exports? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is true. The markets provided by those countries are the cause of most of the inward investment in Britain. Will he therefore tell them that the crisis that they want with Europe would also be a crisis within British industry?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is creating in his question a crisis where no crisis exists. The paper to which he referred is still in my pending tray. We are not aiming for a crisis. We aim for steady progress towards the kind of European Union with which the Government and the British people are at ease—a Europe of nations dedicated to opening markets, to free trade and to the institutions of Europe on the whole doing less, and doing it better.

Overseas Commerce

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to strengthen overseas commercial activities. [25436]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): On 1 March my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced plans to strengthen commercial activity overseas by opening 14 new posts and creating over 100 additional commercial staff slots. New export promotion targets and programmes, many of which will involve our posts overseas, are also included in the second competitiveness White Paper, launched on 22 May.

Mr. Hendry: Given that we are experiencing an export-led recovery and that firms in my constituency and elsewhere are actively seeking new markets overseas, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that our diplomats around the world see it as an ever more important part of their role to actively support British industry? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he sees as the key priority in that area?

Mr. Goodlad: Helping British companies to win business is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's largest single activity overseas, and accounts for 30 per cent. of front-line staff. We have 205 commercial sections in post world wide, and shortly there will be 217. The priorities for the commercial services are to provide market intelligence, to help find overseas business contacts, to support overseas market research, to provide information on overseas companies, to help promote products and services, to organise seminars and briefings and to give political and economic advice on overseas markets. They also provide a door-opening service for United Kingdom companies. I am confident that that work is being done professionally.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister acknowledge that the size, scale and—to some extent—the status of our overseas embassies often reflects times past rather than changing patterns in the world? What steps are being made within the Foreign Office to review the strength of our overseas representation in different countries to ensure that it reflects new and emerging patterns in the world and is not frozen in the past?

Mr. Goodlad: There is a constant process of inspection; the Foreign Office is probably the most heavily inspected and reviewed part of the public service. That is reflected by the fact that we are continually closing posts where they are no longer needed, reducing them in size and opening them where there are new challenges and opportunities. We are going through a fundamental expenditure review. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he looks for, as the list of embassies is updated on a continuous basis.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive response to that question. Does he accept that the major growth in the world in the next 10 to 15 years is likely to take place, not in over-regulated Europe, but in the middle east, the Indian sub-continent, the Pacific rim and south-east Asia? How many of the additional posts which he has announced will fall within the middle east, the Indian sub-continent, the Pacific rim, south-east Asia and China?

Mr. Goodlad: The short answer to my hon. Friend is a lot. Information on the new posts has been placed in the Library. The list includes Australia, Turkmenistan, Thailand, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Mexico, Georgia, Laos and Armenia, and includes the very areas which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Iraq

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's policy towards Iraq. [25437]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the UN sanctions until Iraq complies with its obligations under all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Recognising the suffering of the Iraqi people, we played a major part in achieving the unanimous adoption of resolution 986, permitting Iraq to export substantial quantities of oil in return for aid. Iraq's precipitate rejection of the resolution is a striking example of the regime's disregard for its own people.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful for the Minister's thoughtful reply. He will be glad to know that I shall not ask about past arms sales to Iraq. Will he assure the House that, as part of the sanctions, the United Nations is rigorously enforcing the question of arms imports into Iraq? Is he certain that no country is supplying armaments to that awful regime?

Mr. Hogg: I am not aware of any military support for Iraq, and we would do our best to frustrate it should we become aware of it.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that one of the reasons which he


gave the House for continuing sanctions was the installation of elaborate monitoring equipment and the need to ensure that it works properly. Does it?

Mr. Hogg: We are still at an early stage in installing the systems. The real problem is that Mr. Ekeus has not yet declared himself satisfied that Iraq has complied with the requirements of the Security Council resolutions that deal with weapons of mass destruction. That is particularly, although not exclusively, true of biological warfare capacity.

Bosnia

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with his counterparts in the UN over further Serbian aggression in Bosnia and Croatia. [25438]

Mr. Hurd: I have been in close touch with counterparts about the future of the UN force in Bosnia and the detention of UN troops by the Bosnian Serbs. We have been holding talks in London with the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, in the past two days. The new French Foreign Minister will visit me this evening and that will no doubt be our main topic of conversation. While the release of the second group of hostages this morning is welcome, we all agree that all UN troops should be returned unconditionally, unharmed and at once.

Mr. Griffiths: What does the Foreign Secretary think of the failure of the Bosnian Serbs to allow the Red Cross access to the hostages? Is not that in breach of recognised international codes of conduct and morals?

Mr. Hurd: The Bosnian Serbs are in breach of those codes by detaining the hostages in the first place. We are applying pressures, both direct and indirect, to bring about their unconditional and immediate release. There has been some progress, although not yet enough. While people are held, they should be treated decently, and access by the Red Cross should be allowed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of the need to maintain firmness and cohesion among the nations of the contact group, are there plans for the contact group to meet either at Heads of Government or Foreign Minister level? If there are no such plans, will my right hon. Friend consider convening a meeting?

Mr. Hurd: We had a meeting at ministerial level last week, and I am sure that we shall need another such meeting before long.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary will know that there have been some reports that Mr. Kozyrev is unenthusiastic about the proposals for an additional deployment of troops from the United Kingdom. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us as a result of his conversations with Mr. Kozyrev whether he is now reconciled to that further deployment? Is there now a risk that Russia will object at the United Nations to the deployment of those troops?

Mr. Hurd: Mr. Kozyrev said yesterday that he had been reassured by the explanations on that point. The draft resolution, which will need to go before the Security Council, will be designed to lift the ceiling of UNPROFOR, which is defined in the present resolutions

and is too low, but it will not need to change the mandate. There is plenty of scope in the mandate for useful work by the reinforcements now going out to protect the British contingent in UNPROFOR—for example, supplying light artillery and equipment for mine clearing, while giving greater protection to those involved.

Mr. Budgen: If it be true that there is risk that the Bosnian war might spread across the map of Europe and involve Russia and the United States coming in on opposite sides, why are we talking about withdrawing the troops?

Mr. Hurd: Our aim is not to withdraw troops; our aim is to make a success of the present exercise. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have said for a long time that that is our aim and our wish.
One can conceive of circumstances in which that becomes impossible, in which case, obviously, we would need to withdraw. I think that then the arms embargo would probably be lifted, that the present half peace, half war in Bosnia would become once again a full and savage war and that there would be a risk of it spreading outwards to other parts of the Balkans, with the accompanying risk that the big powers might be divided as to which side, if any, they supported.
However, our aim is not to withdraw. Our aim is to make a success of what we have set our hand to.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The whole House will wish whatever negotiations are taking place about release of the hostages to be successful, but may we have an assurance that the British Government are not sanctioning a trade-off whereby we give, or anyone gives, undertakings not to make air strikes in return for the release of hostages? May we have an assurance that the British Government are not giving any sanction to any party that that might be our position?

Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister gave that assurance to the House in the debate last week.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of my constituents—I agree with them—consider that the only national vital interest we have in Bosnia is obtaining the release of our troops? Is it not strange that we have to have more troops there than any other country, especially when Italy, which presumably has a much greater national interest, and Germany, have almost none? Will he tell the House what will be the total monthly cost of humanitarian aid in the presence of our troops when all the reinforcements have been deployed, and who is paying that cost?

Mr. Hurd: We do not at the moment have the greatest number of troops; the French have the greatest number of troops, although my hon. Friend is right to say that, when the full reinforcements that have been promised are in place, we shall probably have the greatest number. The Prime Minister set out in the debate last week—I believe he had general support on both sides of the House—two main reasons why we sent troops to Bosnia. The first is the humanitarian one—to save lives. The second is the strategic one—that we wish to damp down that war if we can, to contain it and to prevent it spreading. Those are the two reasons for our decision that the Prime Minister explained, and I think that he was right.
The humanitarian aid and UNPROFOR, the UN force, are financed by the UN, overwhelmingly. We make our contribution to that, as do other countries. The UN is not sufficiently financed at the moment. There are countries—not including us—who do not pay their dues, so there is a slowness in being repaid. Fundamentally, however, those are UN operations.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I join the Foreign Secretary in warmly welcoming the latest release of hostages, and express our full support for every pressure on the Bosnian Serbs for the early and safe release of all hostages? Does he agree that the release of the majority of the hostages shows that the international community was right to show a new resolve towards the Bosnian Serbs and to refuse to give in to blackmail, and that the House was right to set aside the voices urging an immediate withdrawal, which would have been the biggest concession that the Bosnian Serbs could have asked for?

Mr. Hurd: The debate in the House last week showed the House at its best. It was entirely right that anxieties were expressed, because anxieties exist; I believe that we all feel them. However, it was also right that the great majority of voices should support the line that we are taking. We will hold to that line.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to consider yielding at the next IGC additional powers to the European Parliament; and if he will list the powers concerned. [25439]

Mr. David Davis: The European Parliament acquired important new powers in the Maastricht treaty, and we have heard no convincing case for extending them further in the 1996 IGC. If it is to address genuine public concerns, the European Parliament should devote more attention to tackling fraud and to holding the Commission to account. So I can answer my hon. Friend in one word: none.

Mr. Riddick: I thank my hon. Friend for his clear and unequivocal reply. Will he confirm that, in the unseemly horse trading that will no doubt take place at next year's intergovernmental conference, the Government will make no concessions on the issue of co-decision making powers which would hand over more powers to the European Parliament at the expense of Ministers, including British Ministers—something that has been supported by the leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament, Ms Pauline Green, and that other well known Labour lady, Ms Glenys Kinnock?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is exactly right about the Labour party's position. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, it is no surprise that some federalists entertain fantasies about a Labour victory. Fortunately, that will never happen.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that last September, in an interesting speech at Leiden, the Prime Minister called for the House to be more involved with the European Parliament in overseeing legislation? The sort of fatuous, anti-European Parliament remarks that the Minister has just made do not contribute to resolving the

difficult problem of the democratic deficit and the need to find some balance between the need to represent our constituents in the House and the role of the European Parliament.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman, with his incredible intelligence, clearly did not listen to my answer. I made no reference to national Parliaments. He is right to say that the Prime Minister said that we should pay attention to giving our national Parliaments a greater involvement in the legislation of the European Union, and we shall be doing just that.

Mr. Jenkin: But what do my hon. Friend and his colleagues intend to do about the fact that the European Parliament will progressively gather more powers by virtue of the legal framework that currently exists?

Mr. MacShane: Quite right.

Mr. Jenkin: "Quite right," says the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). As the unions chip away at our opt-out from the social chapter through the courts and through the European courts, will not the European Parliament gather power over those competencies? Has not my hon. Friend got either to take to the intergovernmental conference a plan completely to reform the legal structure of the EU or go for much more comprehensive opt-outs to stop the European Parliament interfering with the success achieved by the Government in industrial relations in this country?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem of creeping competence, and it applies precisely to the area that he describes—the social chapter opt-out. I shall pay much attention to that issue in the next six months.

Ms Quin: In response to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), the Minister mentioned issues of public concern. Will he explain why the list of topics to be considered by the reflection group, of which he is a member, concentrates overwhelmingly on institutional issues and contains no specific mention of unemployment or issues such as the environment or the reform of the common agricultural policy? How does he intend to ensure that those matters are properly discussed? As the Minister also said that he was in favour of more openness, what specific plans does he have to inform the public and Parliament about the progress made in those discussions?

Mr. Davis: I have already answered half of those questions. If the hon. Lady had paid attention to the reports of what I said at the reflections group, she would have seen that I said that less than 50 per cent. of the people of Europe currently feel that their nation state receives a benefit from the European Union. That is precisely because individual citizens do not see themselves as gaining from the European Union. I said that that issue had to he addressed by the reflections group during its considerations in the next six months.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when one strips away the noise and bluster that we have heard from the Opposition on the issue, the simple fact is that more power for the European Parliament would mean less power for this Parliament? If that is what the Opposition believe, they should put it to the electorate, who would reject the notion.

Mr Davis: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Labour formula for the intergovernmental conference appears to be capitulation on qualified majority voting, collapse on co-decision and surrender on the social chapter—none of which would benefit this country.

Cyprus

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the political situation in Cyprus. [25440]

Mr. Hurd: We believe that the present division of Cyprus is unacceptable. We are actively supporting the United Nations Secretary General's mission of good offices, which offers the best hope for a just and lasting solution. Exploratory discussions between representatives of the two communities in Cyprus were held in London on 21 to 23 May. We are encouraging both sides in Cyprus to approach future negotiations positively and flexibly.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Secretary of State agree that, as a guarantor power, Britain could be doing much more to ensure, first, that refugees are able to return to their homes as part of a just solution and, secondly, that news is obtained of people who have been missing since 1974? When does the Secretary of State or one of his colleagues next expect to visit the island of Cyprus to discuss in person a long overdue speedy and just solution to the problem?

Mr. Hurd: In the past few years we have expended a lot of energy pursuing both the specific points that the hon. Lady mentioned. My colleagues and I are continually in touch with the President of Cyprus and the Foreign Minister of Cyprus, Mr. Michaelides, to discuss how we can help the two communities to reach a necessary agreement. We believe in one Cyprus with two communities and a federal constitution. It is difficult to turn that principle into a settled agreement. That is why we are in favour of private talks, which were held in London. They did not make as much progress as we had wished, but we must keep on trying, as the hon. Lady said.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear statement of support for one Cyprus with two communities and also for the work that he and the Foreign Office have done to ensure that the two communities can meet to talk about matters which concern them greatly. They are the ones who must make a decision about a just and lasting solution, but does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has a particular responsibility to Cyprus both as a guarantor power and because many British citizens who are also Cypriots look to the Government in London to become actively involved in finding a solution?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. He and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly remind me constantly that we have a special responsibility to Cyprus for both the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned. We take that responsibility seriously, and we act upon it energetically.

Gibraltar

Mr. David Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government are taking against the illegal harassment of Gibraltarians by unjustifiable border checks. [25441]

Mr. Hurd: I have raised our concerns with my Spanish counterpart, Mr. Solana, and our ambassador in Madrid has protested formally to the Spanish Foreign Ministry. We have also approached the Schengen secretariat, other Schengen states and the European Commission. We shall continue to raise the matter with the Spaniards until they take adequate measures at the frontier with Gibraltar to ensure that people can cross the border freely and without undue impediment.

Mr. Young: When the Falkland Islands were invaded, force had to be met with force. The harassment that has taken place over many months is affecting British citizens and the economy of Gibraltar. Does the Secretary of State believe that rebukes to the Spanish Government of which they take no notice will be adequate in this situation? Does he have any other thoughts about what can be done to stop the harassment? Will he also give an assurance that the Government will not remove any of the Gibraltar Government's existing powers?

Mr. Hurd: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. There have been problems at the frontier. They were solved temporarily as a result of a meeting that I had with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 20 December, but the trouble has recurred recently. We must keep up the pressure and the Spaniards know that we will do that.
The hon. Gentleman's second point raises a completely separate issue. As Gibraltar wishes to remain and prosper as a financial centre within the European Union, it is important that it should comply with the rules of the European Union for which the British Government, as the sovereign power, are responsible. We are in touch with Gibraltar, particularly about the need to bring legislation on money laundering into line with the standards in Britain. I am more hopeful than I was that we are making progress. It is a separate issue, but it is important.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Schengen agreement on frontier controls is not the equivalent of the external frontier of the European Union, although Spain is using it as such and as a pretext for delays at the frontier? What action is the Foreign Office taking to persuade Spain to ratify the external frontier convention in relation to Gibraltar, as that could put an end to the circumstances which enable Spain to take destructive action in respect of Gibraltar?

Mr. Hurd: I look forward to talking about the subject in greater depth with the Spaniards before long. My hon. Friend is quite right about the distinction between the Schengen agreement and the external frontier. We do not believe that the Spaniards have any justification for their action.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Foreign Secretary consider that the threat which was reportedly made to impose direct rule on Gibraltar might encourage the Spaniards to believe that the constitutional position of Gibraltar could be undermined in view of precedents elsewhere? Does he acknowledge that the United Kingdom would have more credibility in regard to upholding the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar if it fully respected the democratic institutions in Gibraltar?

Mr. Hurd: We hold entirely to the undertaking given to the people of Gibraltar in the 1969 constitution that we would never enter into arrangements whereby the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another


state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. On the separate issue of direct rule, we have no desire to act directly; for the reasons that I have already given, however, it is important that the Government of Gibraltar should pass legislation bringing their law book into line with their own wishes and ambitions as a financial centre.

Intergovernmental Conference

12. Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has drawn up a formal agenda for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [25442]

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's preparation for the intergovernmental conference. [25444]

Mr. David Davis: The intergovernmental conference is still some way off—at least seven months, and perhaps more. Several issues are already identified for discussion—I have spelt them out on previous occasions—and other issues may be added. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the basis of our approach to the 1GC in the House on 1 March and Cabinet Committees have already taken a preliminary look at some of the individual issues.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. At a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult to find those who wish to remember that they voted for the Maastricht treaty, I was wondering whether a White Paper would he a useful performance factor to enable the Foreign Office to prove that it is winning all the arguments? For instance, in the preamble we still have such phrases as "ever closer union" and "single institutional framework". Do they sit easily with our professed aim to safeguard Britain's national interests?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend will be unsurprised to hear that I not only remember voting for Maastricht but I have a list of those who did and those who did not. As for his comments about ever closer union and creeping competence, I have already answered my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on that matter. My hon. Friend can be very clear that I shall continue to oppose centralising tendencies in the European Union, including the matters that he raised. On the White Paper, I refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 May at columns 703–4 of Hansard.

Dr. Wright: Will the Minister confirm that the thrust of British policy as we approach the IGC is to win friends and influence people? Will he tell us now, in concrete terms, which friends we are currently winning and over which issues we are now exercising some influence? Is not the truth that, as before, the British Government are marching us resolutely and remorselessly to irrelevant and impotent isolation?

Mr. Davis: Government policy is principally aimed at defending the British national interest—that first, that second and that last. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's variation of his leader's "I'll never stand alone" frame, in which Labour will stand up to nobody for anything. That is not the way to win arguments in Europe.

Sir Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister made a clear commitment to restoring

the powers of this national Parliament over European matters, which must include European legislation? Will he confirm also that there will be no weakening of that resolve, and describe the mechanisms by which that objective will be achieved?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he wants to see this national Parliament and all national Parliaments exercise rights in the control of legislation. That is very much part of the brief that I take to the reflections group, and which I expect we shall take to the intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Soley: Was the Minister not present in the House on 3 May, when the Foreign Secretary said that he supported the Maastricht treaty aim of a common foreign and security policy and that he would continue to build that policy "brick by brick", to use his phrase? Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister saying on 23 May that he would block any attempt by the Community to extend its powers into foreign defence policy? Perhaps the Minister will say what is Cabinet policy.

Mr. Davis: That is a remarkable exercise in ignorance by the hon. Gentleman, who does not distinguish between Community and Union. The British Government's stance is straightforward: to make a common foreign security policy work, and work well, on an intergovernmental basis.

Monetary Union

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on European monetary union; and how this will be presented at the reflections group. [25443]

Mr. David Davis: The United Kingdom will not participate in a single currency in 1996 or in 1997. The United Kingdom would only ever take part in a single currency if to do so would be in the national interest. Under the UK protocol to the treaty on European union, any decision to seek to join a single currency would be a matter for the UK Government and Parliament. The Government see no reason for any of the articles or associated protocols relating to economic and monetary union to be on the agenda for the 1996 intergovernmental conference. Neither is it on the agenda of the reflections group. The Government do not therefore intend to provide any submission on the issue to the reflections group.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive and helpful reply. I take it that when he attends the reflections group he will be aware that other participants will arrive with the views of their countries and national Parliaments and Executives clearly in mind. They may want to do things that my hon. Friend might oppose. May I have my hon. Friend's assurance that what he has just said will give him the ground for opposing?

Mr. Davis: In one sense, we shall be observing a difference of view between other countries. Some will want to relax the convergence criteria, some will want to tighten them. For that reason, I do not foresee a single currency being a major issue in the reflections group or the intergovernmental conference.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The thrust of the Minister's answer was helpful. but does he accept that he who pays the piper calls the tune? In the European context, do we


not have to monitor carefully those who would print bank notes and issue Government bonds and destroy the whole economy?

Mr. Davis: One benefit of the British Government's position is that we are part of that process. Our policy input is extraordinarily important, and we are taken extremely seriously in those arguments. We have as much influence as anyone could wish.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the quickest way to create a federal Europe would be to enter a single currency, so it is hardly surprising that the Government are so cautious? Public support for the Government's position is also hardly surprising. When will the Opposition wake up to that fact?

Mr. Davis: The answer to my hon. Friend's last point is never.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with the successor states of the former Yugoslavia. [25446]

Mr. Hogg: We have recognised the states of the former Yugoslavia with the exception of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The development of relations with the latter will depend on its recognition of the other states and on its readiness to take further concrete steps to promote a political settlement to the conflict.

Mr. Gapes: Does the Government's position remain one of support for a negotiated peaceful outcome to the crisis? Will the Minister assure us that the Government's position is at one with that of the United Nations Secretary-General on the additional troops being sent to former Yugoslavia, and that they should remain and be under UN control?

Mr. Hogg: It is indeed our policy to promote a political settlement within former Yugoslavia, and Bosnia especially, although I am bound to say that progress on that is not so rapid as we would like. The reinforcements are being deployed under the UN flag to reinforce the performance by UNPROFOR of the mandate.

Morocco

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of relations between Britain and Morocco. [25448]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Relations between Britain and Morocco are good. We recognise Morocco's significance as a stable and moderate country in a region which, though fragile, is of increasing importance to the EU.

Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he reassure the House that the Government will continue to do their best to help to reach a positive conclusion to the EU-Morocco fishing agreement, and to the European-Moroccan Mediterranean Association amendment, in the interests of the regional stability to which he has referred, as well as economic progress in the area, especially in view of the great suffering in Morocco due to the awful drought and its consequences?

Mr. Hogg: With regard to the association agreement, we support it and hope to see an agreement concluded.

We favour greater access for Moroccan goods to EU markets. We would also welcome a fisheries agreement and are disappointed that one was not possible. When negotiating that agreement, it is important not to prejudice the position that we have taken for some time on the question of western Sahara.

Sir David Steel: How actively are the Government attempting to assist the ending of the procrastination in holding a referendum on western Sahara?

Mr. Hogg: We are anxious to see a referendum and we are doing what we can to bring that about. It depends in the end on persuasion, and we are trying to persuade.

Diplomatic Locations

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new diplomatic locations have been opened by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in each of the past three years; at what cost to public funds; how many similar locations have been closed; at what saving to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [25449]

Mr. Hurd: I have deposited the information requested by the hon. Gentleman in the Library. Our interests are global and our overseas representation needs to match them. We must respond quickly and flexibly to changing opportunities and to challenges. This year we plan to close three posts and open 15 new ones. The new posts are concentrated in countries where new export opportunities for British companies are opening up.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply that 15 new trading opportunities have been opened up for the United Kingdom. Is he satisfied that the Treasury is prepared to respond quickly enough with the money required to open new diplomatic missions abroad, especially where there is a possibility of new trade, as has occurred in recent years in eastern Europe, including Russia and Poland?

Mr. Hurd: No, indeed. The Treasury would not be doing its job if I felt comfortable about that. The Treasury makes us sweat to open new posts. For instance, we have plans to abolish more than 500 support staff over three years. Such savings and reviews and constant pressure for greater efficiency, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State always refers, are what we rightly have to implement and maintain so as to expand overseas and help our exports in the way that I have announced.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State have an opinion about the need for a consulate in Krakow, where many other principal European players have consular services? Bearing in mind its important geographical position in central Europe, will he have regard to the desire both by British people and by Polish people to see some significant representation in that important southern Polish city?

Mr. Hurd: Let me look into that. I have not studied that, although I notice that at least 10 of the posts that we have opened in the past three years are in central and eastern Europe, for the kind of reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend think that redeployment is going quickly enough? There is a


suspicion that we have perhaps too many diplomats in lovely cities such as Paris and not enough in Poland and eastern and central Europe.

Mr. Hurd: We have cut Paris by, I think, 10 per cent. in recent years. With a new French Government and new personalities, as is the case now, when it is important to get to grips with them and the issues quickly, one sees vividly the need to have trained and expert and professional staff in a place such as Paris.

United Nations Anniversary

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. [25450]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There will be a major national commemoration ceremony in Westminster Hall on 26 June in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations charter.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the huge advantage to international peace and mediation in the last 50 years achieved by the UN, which was founded here, will the Minister give an assurance that not only will the Government continue to be absolutely unqualified supporters of the United Nations but that they will also take the lead in ensuring that the UN is equipped to deal with the objectives of the next half century? In particular, that may mean retargeting some of its efforts and ensuring that some of our allies and friends play as full a part—including contributing fully, as we have done—in ensuring that it is an even more effective organisation in the years ahead.

Mr. Hogg: I believe that we have been taking the lead—for instance, on proposals that we have made in the context of conflict prevention and more specifically on the action that the United Kingdom Government have taken in support of the United Nations in Bosnia.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister use every opportunity during this year to express the grave reservations of the Government and the House about moves in the United States Congress to reduce subscriptions to the vital work of the United Nations? Will he make it clear to the members of Congress whom he meets that that is exactly what the world does not need at this time?

Mr. Hogg: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I regard the legislation that was passed in the Congress as extremely damaging and I regret that it happened. I shall certainly take every opportunity to make that point to American Congressmen and Senators and to stress the importance of making a full contribution to the United Nations. Indeed, I shall make the further point that that is required by their international obligations.

Mr. Murphy: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that, in the year when the United Nations is

celebrating its 50th anniversary, there are no proposals for Britain to withdraw from the oldest of those agencies, the International Labour Organisation?

Mr. Hogg: As it happens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment answered questions yesterday tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on precisely that matter. I commend to the hon. Gentleman those replies, which make the position and the commitment of the United Kingdom Government quite clear.

Sir Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the appreciation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for the considerable assistance rendered by our ambassador and mission in New York for the IPU conference in August and September on the occasion of its 50th anniversary? Following what he has just said, will he use his good offices to persuade the US Congress to support that opportunity to assess the needs and requirements of the United Nations for the next 50 years?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the British ambassador to the United Nations. On the second part of his question, the answer is yes.

Consular Activities

Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's consular activities in (a) Europe, (b) north America, (c) south America, (d) Asia, (e) Africa and (f) Australasia in 1994. [25451]

Mr. Baldry: A breakdown by geographical area of how consular resources were spent in 1993–94 is contained in the 1995 departmental report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

Dr. Howells: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I should like to ask him about one aspect of that expenditure: entry clearance duties. What measures are being taken to strengthen the alleged links between his Department and the Home Office to ensure that the activities and duties carried out by our consulates around the world with regard to entry clearance are of a sufficiently high standard and efficient enough to ensure that backlogs of work are not placed at the door the hard-pressed and under-resourced immigration service at ports of entry in Britain?

Mr. Baldry: The entry clearance officers who work in our posts throughout the world are a mixture of Home Office and Foreign Office officials and they seek to carry out their work expeditiously. If the hon. Gentleman can instance any post where he thinks that entry clearance work is not being carried out as speedily as it should be, I hope that he will bring it specifically to my attention. Our experience is that throughout the world our entry clearance officers work hard, diligently and efficiently.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

MERCHANT SHIPPING

That the Merchant Shipping (Survey and Certification) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1210) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)

That the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1271) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—  [Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Leaseholders' Protection

Mr. Piers Merchant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the annual maintenance charge which may be levied on leaseholders and a leaseholder's liability for certain works, where the freeholder is a local authority or housing association.
The Bill is intended to address a specific injustice facing many leaseholders whose landlords are either local authorities or housing associations.
At the outset, I should make two points clear. First, the Bill does not cover leaseholders in the private sector. I do not deny that there are problems in that area, but they are generally different, and the remedies should be different too.
Secondly, my Bill does not purport to be offering a comprehensive or the only solution. I would be willing to incorporate other measures or to vary the specifics as a result of suggestions which I hope that my initial proposals will prompt. However, the basic problem must be tackled—that of the sheer size of annual maintenance charges being imposed on many leaseholders, and the underlying causes.
In my constituency, some leaseholders suddenly received demands in excess of £20,000, with curt warnings, such as "Pay or face eviction." The highest annual bill brought to my attention was £25,850, for a new roof and double glazing.
In a letter to me, the leaseholder concerned wrote:
We are being forced to pay for things we do not require and we have no way of affording. We are under immense stress and strain not knowing how we are going to cope—it is an absolute trauma on top of the problem of being unemployed. We are desperate and fear that we will lose our home.
Such leaseholders are not, by any stretch of the imagination, wealthy. Often, they face an annual bill which is larger than the original cost of their property. That is an absurd situation. For them, it is a financial nightmare. It has brought them to the edge of personal disaster, causing untold strain, undermining their whole sense of security, leaving them haunted by the prospect of imminent homelessness.
Alongside that problem are complex disputes about the nature of the maintenance work that needs to be done. Leaseholders often claim that they are being forced to pay huge amounts for work that is unnecessary or which they do not want—for example, double glazing. Other leaseholders tell of the verbal guarantees they were given at the time of purchase that certain renovation works would be carried out at not cost to them—guarantees later reneged upon.
There are disputes about repairs versus improvements, and renovation as against remedying structural design faults. Often the lease is inadequate or unclear, an arcane area into which I do not intend to venture today.
The first proposal in my Bill is a rough and ready one aimed at bringing fast protection to these financially embattled leaseholders. It would put a clear statutory limit, a cap, on the amount that a leaseholder could reasonably be charged by the landlord or agent in any one year. The exact amount will be fixed, after consultation, by regulation.
There is already acceptance of the concept of a reasonable limit in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, that is an uncertain protection, usually requiring lengthy and often expensive litigation, and producing inconsistency in practice. A fixed figure would be clear to all parties, who could plan in the certain knowledge that it would provide a sure quantity of protection.
Such an idea recognises that it is legitimate for a freeholder to expect a leaseholder to contribute to general works, and that sometimes those works may be major. By signing a lease, the leaseholder accepted certain responsibilities, and I do not wish to extinguish those. Nevertheless, the Bill would put into figures a cap above which an annual demand might be widely considered unreasonable.
My second proposal is designed to prevent an unscrupulous landlord from issuing bills up to the annual limit each year, which, when compounded, could also become unreasonable. I propose a further maximum charge over any such five-year period, which would also he fixed by regulation.
My third proposal seeks to give leaseholders more powers in the decision-making process, as a means of reducing maintenance charges. It would give a leaseholder the right to obtain his own survey to determine what work was required, followed by the right to obtain his own tenders for that work, combined with longer statutory notice periods and tighter regulations on consultation. The landlord would be obliged to take the leaseholder's survey and tenders into account, and would have to show good reason for not accepting the lowest tender price for the least work deemed necessary.
My fourth and final proposal is to define more clearly what works a freeholder can insist must be done—those that are mandatory on the leaseholder, as opposed to those that would be optional and might be accepted or rejected by the leaseholder. A local authority or housing association would be unable to force the leaseholder to contribute to works in the latter category.
Such a distinction might appear difficult to make, but closer examination convinces me that it would be relatively easy to list most works in one of two categories. For example, the exterior painting of a block or the repair of a leaking roof would fall into the mandatory category, while double glazing or a purely cosmetic improvement scheme would not.
That "exemption clause" would immediately protect many leaseholders against expensive projects in which they do not wish to participate. On the other hand, they

could opt in if they wished: it might well be in their interest to do so, so that they could benefit from the economies of scale that might be available.
Together, these measures would give extensive new protection to leaseholders without freeing them from the necessary obligations that leasehold—as opposed to freehold—brings. They would also help to achieve a better balance of power between leaseholders and public-sector freeholders.
At present, the problem is one of imbalance. Public sector freeholders are mighty organisations with huge financial muscle; they appear less amenable to leaseholder pressure than the average private sector freeholder, normally a small organisation that depends on leaseholder good will for ease of running. There have even been suggestions that some local authority housing departments or housing associations have a hidden agenda to force out leaseholders as part of a design to return properties to tenancy only. One housing official said that to me in so many words.
My scheme is deliberately designed to have no adverse public expenditure consequences. Indeed, it is preferable to some existing suggestions that would have such consequences. The leaseholder consent provisions would force landlords to cut the more ambitious modernisation projects to acceptable levels; long-term renovation would have to be staged over a number of years, rather than pushed through in one go. Public sector freeholders would have to behave like freehold home owners in the maintenance of their property, taking one step at a time as finance allowed.
In the very few remaining cases in which that was simply not possible—for example, urgent works to ensure structural safety—it might, rarely, be necessary for the freeholder to draw on other funds. That small amount—in comparison with the total held—would have to come from efficiency savings. There is some potential there, as my Bill would also prevent any extra costs resulting from the Bill from being imposed on tenants.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Piers Merchant.

LEASEHOLDERS' PROTECTION

Mr. Piers Merchant accordingly presented a Bill to limit the annual maintenance charge which may be levied on leaseholders and a leaseholder's liability for certain works, where the freeholder is a local authority or housing association: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 2

ORDER TO MAKE MATERIAL AVAILABLE

'.—(1) The procurator fiscal may, for the purpose of an investigation into whether a person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies and as to the amount of that benefit, apply to the sheriff for an order under subsection (2) below in relation to particular material or material of a particular description.
(2) If on such an application the sheriff is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (4) below are fulfilled, he may make an order that the person who appears to him to be in possession of the material to which the application relates shall—

(a) produce it to a constable for him to take away; or
(b) give a constable access to it,
within such period as the order may specify.

This subsection is subject to section (Disclosure of information held by government departments)(11) of this Act.
(3) The period to be specified in an order under subsection (2) above shall he seven days unless it appears to the sheriff that a longer or shorter period would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the application.
(4) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies;
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the material to which the application relates—

(i) is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation for the purpose of which the application is made; and
(ii) does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege; and

(c) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest, having regard—

(i) to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained; and
(ii) to the circumstances under which the person in possession of the material holds it,

that the material should be produced or that access to it should be given.

(5) Where the sheriff makes an order under subsection (2)(b) above in relation to material on any premises he may, on the application of the procurator fiscal, order any person who appears to him to be entitled to grant entry to the premises to allow a constable to enter the premises to obtain access to the material.
(6) An application under subsection (1) or (5) above may be made ex parte in chambers.
(7) Provision may be made by rules of court as to—

(a) the discharge and variation of orders under this section, and
(b) proceedings relating to such orders.

(8) Where the material to which an application under this section relates consists of information contained in a computer—

(a) an order under subsection (2)(a) above shall have effect as an order to produce the material in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible; and
(b) an order under subsection (2)(b) above shall have effect as an order to give access to the material in a form in which it is visible and legible.


(9) An order under subsection (2) above—

(a) shall not confer any right to production of, or access to, items subject to legal privilege;
(b) shall have effect notwithstanding any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise; and
(c) may be made in relation to material in the possession of an authorised government department;

and in this subsection "authorised government department" means a government department which is an authorised department for the purposes of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
(10) In this section—

(a) "items subject to legal privilege" and "premises" have the same meanings as in section 40 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987; and
(b) references to a person benefiting from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies, in relation to conduct which is not such an offence but which would have been if it had occurred in Scotland, shall be construed in accordance with section 71 of this Act as if that conduct had so occurred.'.—  [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 3—Authority for search—Government new clause 4—Disclosure of information held by government departments.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The powers provided by the new clauses are not new. We are simply extending those powers that already exist under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, for the purpose of investigation into drug trafficking, to cover investigations into whether a person has benefited from the commission of any other offence. The powers in the new clauses, which have been requested by the chief police officers, will considerably assist investigation into the proceeds of crime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

AUTHORITY FOR SEARCH

'.—(1) The procurator fiscal may, for the purpose of an investigation into whether a person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies and as to the amount of that benefit, apply to the sheriff for a warrant under this section in relation to specified premises.
(2) On such application the sheriff may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises if the sheriff is satisfied—

(a) that an order made under section (Order to make material available) of this Act in relation to material on the premises has not been complied with; or
(b) that the conditions in subsection (3) below are fulfilled; or
(c) that the conditions in subsection (4) below are fulfilled.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(b) above are—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies; and
(b) that the conditions in section (Order to make material available) (4)(b) and (c) of this Act are fulfilled in relation to any material on the premises; and


(c) that it would not be appropriate to make an order under that section in relation to the material because—

(i) it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to produce the material; or
(ii) it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the material or entitled to grant entry to the premises on which the material is situated; or
(iii) the investigation for the purposes of which the application is made might be seriously prejudiced unless a constable could secure immediate access to the material.


(4) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(c) above are—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies; and
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises material relating to the specified person, or to the question whether that person has so benefited or the amount of that benefit, which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation for the purpose of which the application is made, but that the material cannot at the time of the application be particularised; and
(c) that—

(i) it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises; or
(ii) entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced; or
(iii) the investigation for the purpose of which the application is made might be seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises could secure immediate entry to them.


(5) Where a constable has entered premises in the execution of a warrant issued under this section, he may seize and retain any material, other than items subject to legal privilege, which is likely to he of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation for the purpose of which the warrant was issued.
(6) Subsection (10) of section (Order to make material available) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.— [Lord James Doug fol.-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION HELD BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Court of Session may on an application by the Lord Advocate order any material mentioned in subsection (3) below which is in the possession of an authorised government department to be produced to the Court within such period as the Court may specify.
(2) The power to make an order under subsection (1) above is exercisable if—

(a) the powers conferred on the Court by section 91(1)(a) of this Act are exercisable by virtue of section 92(2) of this Act; or
(b) those powers are exercisable by virtue of section 92(3) of this Act and the Court has made a restraint order which has riot been recalled.

(3) The material referred to in subsection (1) above is any material which—

(a) has been submitted to an officer of an authorised government department by a person who holds, or has at any time held. realisable property;

(b) has been made by an officer of an authorised government department in relation to such a person; or
(c) is correspondence which passed between an officer of an authorised government department and such a person;

and an order under that subsection may require the production of all such material or of a particular description of such material, being material in the possession of the department concerned.
(4) An order under subsection (1) above shall not require the production of any material unless it appears to the Court of Session that the material is likely to contain information that would facilitate the exercise of the powers conferred on the Court by section 91(1)(a) of or paragraph 1 or 12 of Schedule 3 to this Act or on an administrator appointed under paragraph 1(1) of that Schedule.
(5) The Court may by order authorise the disclosure to such an administrator of any material produced under subsection (1) above or any part of such material; but the Court shall not make an order under this subsection unless a reasonable opportunity has been given for an officer of the department to make representations to the Court.
(6) Material disclosed in pursuance of an order under subsection (5) above may, subject to any conditions contained in the order, be further disclosed for the purposes of the functions under Part II of this Act of the administrator or the High Court.
(7) The Court of Session may by order authorise the disclosure to a person mentioned in subsection (8) below of any material produced under subsection (1) above or any part of such material; but the Court shall not make an order under this subsection unless—

(a) a reasonable opportunity has been given for an officer of the department to make representations to the Court; and
(b) it appears to the Court that the material is likely to be of substantial value in exercising functions relating to the investigation of crime.

(8) The persons referred to in subsection (7) above are—

(a) a constable;
(b) the Lord Advocate or any procurator fiscal; and
(c) an officer within the meaning of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

(9) Material disclosed in pursuance of an order under subsection (7) above may, subject to any conditions contained in the order, be further disclosed for the purposes of functions relating to the investigation of crime or whether any person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies or the amount of that benefit.
(10) Material may be produced or disclosed in pursuance of this section notwithstanding any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise.
(11) An order under subsection (1) above and, in the case of material in the possession of an authorised government department, an order under section (Order to make material available) (2) of this Act may require any officer of the department (whether named in the order or not) who may for the time being be in possession of the material concerned to comply with such order; and any such order shall be served as if the proceedings were civil proceedings against the department.
(12) Where any requirement is included in any order by virtue of subsection (11) above, the person on whom the order is served—

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the officer concerned; and
(b) if the order is not brought to that officer's attention within the period referred to in subsection (1) above, shall report the reasons for the failure to the Court of Session,

and it shall also be the duty of any other officer of the department in receipt of the order to take such steps as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
(13) In this section "authorised government department" means a government department which is an authorised department for the purposes of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; and subsection (10) of section (Order to make material available) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section2.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

VERDICT OF NOT PROVEN NO LONGER COMPETENT

'. In any criminal proceedings the verdict of not proven shall no longer be competent:.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 would do away with the device which allows Scottish juries to let an accused person off while indicating that they think that he probably committed the crime. That is obviously a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Our famous not proven verdict is a sort of formal cop-out, which has been regard with much curiosity, but which has not been adopted in any other jury system on the planet, as far as I know.
I strongly believe that amendments to Scots law should be made in a Scottish legislature. I am confident that that will be possible perhaps in three years' time, but I know that the availability of this widely misunderstood hybrid verdict is giving rise to serious problems now. As, for the time being, this House is the only place in which Scots law can be amended, I hope that the House will give serious consideration to the proposal.
I hope that it is clear from my reputation that I cherish Scotland's institutions and its traditions, and perhaps even our national idiosyncrasies, but it is abundantly clear to me that this particular example is far more bother than it is worth. It is making real mischief and devaluing the quality of Scottish justice. I understand that the distinction between not proven and not guilty dates back to a trial in 1728, in which the jury was so unimpressed by the prosecution case that it decided that the established verdict of not proven would not be clear enough in that particular case. The jurors set a Scottish precedent by finding the accused not guilty. That is where it all started.
Ever since then, Scots juries have had a menu of three verdicts available to them. The first is not guilty, which means what it says. The second is guilty, which means very guilty. The third is not proven, which is interpreted as meaning that the jury thinks that the accused is possibly or probably guilty, but has the effect of acquitting him.
The not proven verdict is a comprehensive cop-out. The accused person may be technically and effectively acquitted. Of course, he cannot be retried for the same offence, but it leaves an indelible smear on the character and record of that acquitted person. That is a thoroughly undesirable departure from the principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty.
On Monday this week, a jury returned a not proven verdict on a lawyer who had been accused of a drugs offence. In theory, he has been acquitted, but it is fair to assume that his reputation is blemished, and that his career is likely to be affected as a consequence of that not proven verdict. He is not guilty but, after that verdict, he is not innocent, either.
I appreciate that the not proven verdict is a welcome bolthole for a guilty person who would otherwise be sentenced but, by the same token, it is an intolerable burden for an innocent person to carry, and all the worse because one cannot appeal against a not proven verdict to clear one's name.
The situation is even worse for the victims of crime in these cases. They have a clear message from the jury that the original accused person may well be guilty, but that

person walks away without a sentence and the police cannot reopen the case against him or anyone else. Clearly, that is an especially traumatic and unsatisfactory state of affairs for victims and the relatives of victims of serious or violent crime.
3.45 pm
We are all indebted to Kathleen and Joe Duffy for the thoughtful and constructive campaign that they have been waging since the extraordinary conclusion of the trial of the man accused of murdering their 19-year-old daughter, Amanda, in 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been closely involved with the Duffy family as their Member of Parliament, and the House will know that he has been pressing for many years for the abolition of the not proven verdict. I have no doubt that he will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
I do not anticipate that the new clause will command the unanimous support of the Scottish legal profession. Indeed, it would be unusual and worrying if it did. I fully realise that a not proven verdict must be a useful last straw for a desperate defence advocate to grasp, but there is plenty of evidence of long-standing concern about this curious formula among prominent lawyers in Scotland.

Dr. Godman: Ignoring lawyers for a moment—it is always a pleasure to ignore them—does my hon. Friend think that the not proven verdict has any merit at all?

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not think that it has any merit whatever, but my hon. Friend will no doubt seek to participate in the debate later.
I see no useful purpose in maintaining the distinction, or cop-out. The accused person should be acquitted or convicted; no middle way should be available. That has been said down through the years. The most famous quotation is perhaps that from Sir Walter Scott who described the verdict as
that bastard verdict, illogical, contrary to legal principle and wholly indefensible".
Much more recently, Lord Wheatley described it as
indefensible in logic and a relic of procedures long-since abandoned".
I cannot resist mentioning my favourite Scottish lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has been campaigning against the not proven verdict for many years—starting, I think, with a ten-minute Bill on 5 February 1969, when he represented Aberdeen, South. It remains to be seen whether the present hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) will do likewise.
The not proven verdict may be a rather quaint Scottish tradition, but I submit that nostalgia cannot be a sound basis for good justice. The not proven verdict is a device for sidestepping justice and has been tolerated for far too long.
Above all, it is time for the Government to come off the fence. Lord Rodger, the Lord Advocate, has said publicly that he is uneasy about this verdict. At one stage, the Government said that they were awaiting the outcome of the English Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which came out strongly against the idea of introducing scope for a not proven verdict to be used by English juries. The Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to review the issue back in 1993, but I understand that the


review concluded with yet another question—what should he done about majority verdicts if the not proven option were to be removed?
It looks to me as if the Government have copped out of the opportunity to deal with Scotland's notorious cop-out verdict. The Secretary of State has found refuge in another fudge. I accept that the point about majority verdicts must be dealt with, but the fact remains that the not proven verdict is not a serious verdict. It is a formula which should be consigned to history. The case against it has been conclusively proven, and I commend the new clause to the House as a way of dealing with the problem once and for all.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) moved the new clause with commendable brevity. I wish that I could be quite as congratulatory about the terms in which he did so.
I do not mind attacks on lawyers—that is part of the rations on these occasions—but when the hon. Gentleman is reduced to praying in aid Sir Walter Scott, it is worth pointing out, as I think I did on Second Reading, that one of the reasons that Sir Walter Scott was driven to write the Waverley novels was the fact that, up to then, he had had a rather unsuccessful career at the Scottish Bar. While he may be regarded as an authority on the 19th-century novel, he is not generally regarded as someone upon whom great reliance can be placed in important matters of Scots law.
The hon. Member for East Lothian is quite right, to the extent that part of his thesis is that no legal system can survive if it does not submit itself to scrutiny from time to time about its practice and its procedure. That is especially the case when there is a wave of public opinion, to which reference has been made, which appears to support a change which seems right superficially.
It is always important and significant, however, to have regard to the extent to which a change of the kind proposed in the new clause may have profound and far-reaching consequences. In my judgment, the new clause has such consequences, to which the hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself, either in the speech with which he moved the new clause or, indeed, in producing a series of consequential amendments to deal with some of the difficulties which the simple abolition of the not proven verdict would undoubtedly bring about.
There is no justification for keeping the not proven verdict simply because it is peculiarly Scottish or because it has been long established in the Scottish system of law. The case for its abolition must depend on whether it is frustrating justice. It must also depend on a proper understanding of Scottish legal procedure.
As the Government's consultation document "Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland" pointed out, much of the recent criticism of the not proven verdict proceeds on misconceptions about its nature and its effect. People genuinely believed that, if a person was found not proven, he or she could be prosecuted again if fresh evidence became available, not understanding that the not proven verdict is a verdict of acquittal—the Scottish equivalent of a person tholing his or her assize. Another

part of the public's misconception is that, if an individual is found to be not proven, no one else can ever be prosecuted for the crime said to have been committed.
Before we rely too much on a wave of public opinion, one has to ask oneself about the extent to which that public support for change is based on a proper understanding of the existing legal principles involved.

Mr. John McFall: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned public opinion. Does he accept that the public look to the law as it exists, and that the job of the Crown is to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of an individual? If it proves that, the case is proven, and if it does not prove that, the case is not proven. Logically and simplistically, the case for a two-verdict system is manifest.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he said "simplistically". I shall come to that. The difficulty—perhaps it is not a difficulty but an important feature—of the not proven verdict is that it is a sophisticated verdict in a sophisticated legal system. I shall explain why it should be retained.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: No. I want to make some progress, as I am sure that many hon. Members wish to catch Madam Speaker's eye.
It is often said—indeed, the hon. Member for East Lothian said it—that not proven is an easy way out for the jury. In my professional practice—perhaps I ought to declare an interest having been a member of the Faculty of Advocates for some 27 years—I do not recall more than a couple of trials in which a not proven verdict was reached when I felt that justice had been impeded or had not been done. Indeed, I confess that more often I felt a considerable sense of injustice when there was a ringing cry of not guilty, which is what I understand the hon. Gentleman would prefer to a verdict of not proven.
As I have said, not proven is a sophisticated verdict in what we are right to regard as a sophisticated legal system. The circumstances in which it is appropriate may not be capable of scientific prediction, but the law is not an empirical but a normative discipline. The verdict allows juries, sheriffs and justices of the peace sitting alone the opportunity to express a shade of meaning concerning an acquittal different from what they believe would be justified by the use of the words "not guilty".
We should be justified in removing the not proven verdict from our procedure only if it could be shown that it stood in the way of best practice. The hon. Gentleman talked about what response such a verdict might produce in the mind of the victim, and I can offer some anecdotal evidence pointing in the opposite direction from that in which he sought to point the House. In the mind of one of my constituents who was the victim of a sexual assault, that verdict has continued to provide a justification for her courage in exposing herself to cross-examination in open court.
Anyone with any understanding of the position in which a female victim finds herself when she claims that she has been the subject of a sexual assault will appreciate the fact that it is often an act of considerable bravery for that individual to stand in court, give evidence and be subjected to a rigorous and sometimes most unpleasant


cross-examination about her sexual history. That may happen less now, but it still happens to some extent if the court regards it as relevant.
In the case that I mentioned, my constituent took comfort from the fact that, although her evidence was apparently insufficient on its own to bring home guilt on her assailant, she did not face what she would have regarded as the horror of seeing him offered the unqualified certificate of good character to which a not guilty verdict would have entitled him.
If the not proven verdict is such an anomaly, why do juries use it at all? Anyone who observes the jury system over a long period is bound to come to the view that juries display innate common sense and judgment, and that, by and large, jurors get it right on the evidence laid before them. I understand the occasional outpouring of grief of anxiety, or even outright anger, that arises when a not proven verdict is returned, but sympathy and understanding of those emotions should not blind us to the fact that, in serious cases, decisions about guilt and acquittal are taken by the jurors empanelled for that purpose, not by the system of verdicts.
I am by no means convinced that the relatives of someone who has been murdered would feel any more comfortable because a verdict of not guilty rather than a verdict of not proven had been returned. My instinct tells me that, if one can measure such things, they are likely to feel even more distressed.
The hon. Gentleman implied that there was some stigma attached to a not proven verdict. However, I have had several clients who have been admitted—to use a neutral expression—to that verdict, and in my professional experience no one has ever expressed any anxiety about the fact that that was the result of the trial.
Any alteration to the three verdicts available to juries in Scotland cannot be considered in isolation. That is a fundamental weakness in the hon. Gentleman's approach. As I said at the outset, apart from the merits of the verdict, one must have regard to its consequences.
It is not often appreciated that in Scotland a person can be convicted of the most serious charge in the calendar of our criminal law, the charge of murder, on a verdict of eight votes to seven. In such cases, in which the movement of one juror from one side of the argument to the other can have such profound results, the not proven verdict is an important protection in cases in which a simple majority would be sufficient.
Even if the hon. Gentleman were right to suggest that, for the reasons he cites, the not proven verdict should be removed, he could not escape the consequences. He must reconsider the number of jurors, for example, and the majority.

Mr. Home Robertson: indicated assent.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is all very well for the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to assent from a sedentary position, but I have looked through the Order Paper without seeing the consequential amendments which he is proposing in the event that the amendment to which he has just spoken is carried.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Jerry Wiggin will be moving them later.

Mr. Campbell: Propriety demands that I should not respond to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Madam Speaker: I did not hear it.

Mr. Skinner: I said that Jerry Wiggin will move the amendments.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has repeated his remark in order that you may not hear it on a second occasion, Madam Speaker. Clearly you have what one might describe as discreet hearing.

Madam Speaker: Judicial deafness.

4 pm

Mr. Campbell: Yes.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. In many ways, the arguments have been well rehearsed for a long period. A fundamental weakness of the hon. Member for East Lothian's position is his failure to tell the House what the consequences of the amendment would be, or what his proposals would be to deal with those consequences.

Dr. Godman: In defending the verdict of not proven, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny that there is public concern about it. Is he suggesting that it is a rare event and confined to few cases?

Mr. Campbell: No. I do not have the statistics, but no doubt the Minister will be able to advise the House on that. [Interruption.] As if in response to that signal, pieces of paper are fluttering about parts of the House. In a sense, the number of occasions in which the verdict is returned is neither here nor there, as the logic of the verdict is the same whether it is returned on a few occasions or a large number.
Reference has been made to the fact that this is an issue to which the House has had its attention drawn on many occasions in the past, and no doubt will again. On this occasion, the effort that the hon. Gentleman has made is thwarted not simply by the nature of his arguments, but by his failure to provide a clear indication of the consequences he expects, and how those should be met.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I wish to oppose the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). In doing so, I join the massed ranks of the judges of Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and the rape crisis centres and victim support organisations in Scotland—in other words, the majority of informed opinion in Scotland. I could add another esteemed organ of informed opinion in Scotland to that list—the Scottish conference of the Labour party. I hope that their views have some effect on some of my hon. Friends, if not on Conservative Members.
The counter-arguments are driven by the campaign in Hamilton; we all have great sympathy with the circumstances which led to that campaign, and we understand some of the reasons which led to it. But we must stand back from that campaign and say that it is based on a fundamental misconception. The primary and obvious alternative to the not proven verdict is not guilty.


Without going into details of the case, if the verdict of not proven had not been given, the verdict would probably have been not guilty.
Hon. Members wishing to abolish the not proven verdict may be saying that those people who receive that verdict should be found guilty—to some extent, that comes through from the Hamilton campaign—but they must realise that we could be faced with a great increase in the number of miscarriages of justice in Scotland if that came about. That would not be acceptable.
Various arguments were used against the verdict by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, one of which was the suggestion that a lot of the people concerned were in fact guilty. I found some of his arguments confusing. He went on to say that the verdict places a stigma on the person who is found not proven. As he has already said that most of them are guilty, I do not see how he regards that as a problem.
More fundamentally, I refer to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a distinguished member of the Faculty of Advocates. He said that he has not come across the problem of stigma, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) agreed with him from a sedentary position. So I do not think that the problem of stigma is serious. When all is said and done, a not-proven verdict is an acquittal.

Mr. George Robertson: I did not agree with that assertion. Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that rape victims should be happy that such a verdict leaves a stigma behind? After all, that is the only consolation which alleged rape victims can have if acquitted not proven is the verdict at the end of the trial. Is my hon. Friend happy with that?

Mr. Chisholm: I shall discuss the position of rape victims in detail. The main reason that I have been prompted to make this speech is because I have been lobbied by the rape crisis centre in Edinburgh, which is supported by other rape crisis centres in Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not discussing that matter now.
It has been suggested that not proven is a confusing verdict. If we were to get rid of everything that is confusing in the Scottish legal system, we would dismantle quite a lot. More seriously, the not proven verdict can be explained. A judge can explain the options open to the jury, and it is not confusing if it is explained clearly to the jurors and the public at large. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian suggested that a not proven verdict is unsatisfactory for victims, but it is far more satisfactory to victims than a blanket not-guilty verdict.
The rape crisis centre in Edinburgh and the people it represents feel passionately about this issue. Other women's organisations in Edinburgh have also raised the issue with me.
A verdict of not proven is commonly used in rape trials. The consultation document says that, in the High Court, almost 50 per cent. of acquittals for rape are as a result of not proven verdicts. That is a high figure. If such a verdict is abolished, we shall load the dice even more against

women in rape trials, and goodness knows the dice are already heavily loaded against them. I do not know the Scottish figures, but I shall table a parliamentary question later. In England in 1993, in only 10 per cent. of reported rapes was a man eventually found guilty. The figure for England in 1985 was 24 per cent., so I shall be interested to know whether it is the same in Scotland.
That illustrates the serious problem that women face in being believed on accusations of rape. If the not proven verdict is taken away and such verdicts in the High Court become not-guilty verdicts, the credibility, honesty and reliability of women will be further called into question. If women know that that verdict is not available, it will not only be a serious problem for victims of rape but women will be discouraged from coming forward with complaints of rape. I therefore cannot express too strongly the fact that rape crisis organisations feel that this is a major issue for them and those they represent.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I share my hon. Friend's concern about rape victims. I agree that there are a large number of acquittals, whether as a result of not guilty or not proven verdicts. But does he agree that the real problem is the standard of proof that must be attained, and that, because it is difficult to prove rape to a jury's satisfaction, the not proven verdict tends to be a bolthole for juries who are not satisfied whether a person is positively guilty or not guilty?

Mr. Chisholm: In a sense, my hon. Friend repeats the fundamental driving force of the abolition campaign, which is the assumption that not proven verdicts would become guilty verdicts. I hope that I do not misrepresent my hon. Friend in saying that.
The rape crisis organisations, of all people, should be sensitive to that issue. They know, as everyone knows, that the tiny percentage of guilty verdicts in rape cases does not reflect the number of men who really are guilty. They know that many guilty men walk free. Nevertheless, they want the "not proven" verdict to stay. Obviously, they want more convictions; obviously, they want more people to be found guilty who are guilty, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
Not proven falls on the same side of the divide as not guilty, and therefore the not provens would tend to become not guilty rather than guilty. That is the fundamental argument that must be made in the debate. It is the fundamental misunderstanding of the campaign to abolish it.

Dr. Godman: In cases involving the complaint of rape, would it not be more helpful if women complainers were given the type of protection extended to young children, as they are defined as vulnerable witnesses?

Mr. Chisholm: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A great many changes must be made in the way in which rape victims are treated in court. In the new phase of the zero tolerance campaign, which has just begun, one of the demands is that there should be a review of the whole judicial system as it impinges on women victims.
Moving to a conclusion, I wish to echo—perhaps an unusual thing for an Opposition Member to do—the words of the consultation document: that the three verdicts were a pragmatic recognition of reality. That is true in rape cases and in many other cases. It represents reality.
Today I spoke to at least one English Member—I shall probably speak to a few more in the next hour or so—who said that he wished that the not proven verdict was available in England because it would solve many of the problems that he has witnessed in the courts when people get off not guilty. He was thinking not of rape cases but of other situations in which it would be better that someone should be found not proven rather than not guilty.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian has not made his case. I think we must say that the case against that verdict is not proven, and we should retain it.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall make a brief speech.
First, I think that it would be wrong to change the position on the statute book, because we claim, properly and rightly, that we like the uniqueness of our Scottish legal system and the not proven verdict is probably one of the most distinctive parts of the Scottish legal system.
I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who made a speech that surely convinced the House of the huge merit there is in not having full-time Members of Parliament. The advantage of having Queen's counsel come here to give us their experience in the courts is valuable when we discuss something of which few of us have any real experience—what happens in the courts and the pressures on people who appear in court.
The hon. and learned Member made a massive contribution to the retention of the not proven verdict, in a way that only someone with his background and experience could have done. For that we must be thankful. I hope that the House will listen carefully to what he says. It is sad that we have so few Queen's counsel now representing Scottish parliamentary constituencies. In my opinion, we need them, as we need people with other backgrounds and experiences, so that the House can properly and adequately debate the complexities—we are discussing a fairly complex situation—and listen to the experience of people who have travelled the course and understand what is involved.
I hope that the House will reject the new clause.

Dr. Godman: I was struck by some of the things said by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), especially about cases involving the allegation of rape. I was also much impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), and it is his lead that I would follow, especially in respect of complainers in rape cases. In spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said about the cross-examination of complainers in rape cases, I continue to believe that they are confronted with a terrible ordeal. Despite what he said, I still believe that, in some cases, a complainer has her sexual history trawled through by the counsel for the defence.
I should like more protection to be given to complainers in rape cases. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland well knows my position. I have argued that the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993—I think, section 33—could be amended so that complainers in rape cases could be defined as vulnerable witnesses and benefit from the use of television links in court cases. Until now, Ministers and other lawyers in the House have rejected

such a radical measure, but the definition of a vulnerable witness could be extended to cover citizens with learning disabilities.
There are witnesses in cases who need extra protection. Certainly, complainers in rape cases should be placed in that category. The squalid trawling of sexual history still takes place—I do not care what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East says. Complainers in such cases undergo a dreadful ordeal. If, by amending the 1993 Act, we could diminish that ordeal, we would all benefit as a nation, not just the complainers and their families. If the difficulties faced by complainers in rape cases were reinforced by the abolition of the third verdict of not proven, I would vote against the measure on those grounds.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I did not mean to convey, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not understand me to convey, the notion that I was in any way unsympathetic to the way in which the law has developed in relation to the protection of those alleging rape from the sort of analysis of previous sexual history that certainly used to occur. I am entirely in favour of that development. Such analysis occurs much less frequently than it did under the law, even as recently as 10 or 15 years ago.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I know from my experience of the benefit of his company on Standing Committees discussing miscellaneous provisions legislation that he is extremely sympathetic to the position of the complainer in sexual assault cases. I readily acknowledge that the complainer in such cases today does not face the extreme ordeal that complainers faced 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. The same holds true for child witnesses in cases involving child abuse, sexual abuse and neglect.
But that is not to say that being in the witness box and being cross-examined by a highly articulate and sometimes sarcastic defence counsel who is keen to trawl through a woman's sexual history are not a terrible ordeal. On that count alone, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leith for his contribution. We must do a great deal more for complainers in rape cases to ease the harsh difficulties that they face when giving evidence and to persuade others to come forward to report cases of rape—too many cases go unreported.
To follow on from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) should take account of the serious reservations that have been expressed about his new clause.

Mr. George Robertson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for moving new clause 5. Hon. Members know that I have strong personal views on the subject and, as this short debate has shown, there is a division of opinion in Scotland and even within political parties about the not proven verdict. Therefore, among the Opposition—and, I hope, the Government as well—there will be a free vote at the end of the debate on new clause 5. My views are well known and I shall expand on them,


but my right hon. and hon. Friends are free to vote in whichever Lobby they believe is right and proper, bearing in mind the future reputation of the Scottish legal system.
The first question that must be dealt with in relation to the abolition of the not proven verdict and the three verdicts in Scotland is what those verdicts actually are. There are three verdicts available in Scottish courts, which are known colloquially as not proven, not guilty and guilty. That is what the general populace believe the verdicts to be and, in that respect, Scotland is unique among the judicial systems of the world.
However, those are not the formal titles of the verdicts in the Scottish Office. On 23 June 1993, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government, answered my parliamentary question requesting a breakdown of the number of guilty, not guilty and not proven verdicts that were handed down in jury trials in Scottish courts. He answered the question in the following terms:
High Court:
Acquitted Not Guilty, Acquitted Not Proven, Charge Proved".— [Official Report, 23 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 208.]
From the point of view of the Scottish Office, which is in charge of the judicial system, the public are wrong. The three verdicts are not guilty, not guilty and not proven; people are acquitted not guilty, acquitted not proven and charge proved.
I believe that there is a case for reducing the number of verdicts to two, and whether they should be charge proved and acquitted not proven is, quite frankly, a matter of sophistry—to coin a phrase that has been in the news recently. The not proven verdict creates problems simply because there are three verdicts, the terms of which cannot even be agreed. The existence of those three verdicts has led to confusion and, I believe, to an undermining of faith in the Scottish criminal justice system.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a distinguished member of the legal profession and a Queen's counsel, told the House that there was a wave of adverse public opinion about the not proven verdict—which he asked us to ignore or at least discount—because people were confused. If there is such confusion about the terminology of the verdicts in the courts, it is not surprising that there is some confusion among the general population.
What about those poor people who serve on juries? At the end of trials, the sheriffs or judges often do not make clear the differences between the three verdicts. Sheriff Francis Middleton retired last year after a lifetime in the legal profession. He said that it was extraordinary that, during his time on the Bench, he never felt obliged to explain to juries the difference between acquitted not guilty and acquitted not proven. It is assumed that people know the difference but, as I have shown, the Scottish Office itself uses phraseology that is entirely different from that used by the judges and the sheriffs in court. Therefore, it is scarcely surprising that members of the public, as well as jury members, are confused.
When the award-winning BBC programme "Focal Point" examined the not proven verdict, it found that 48 per cent. of those who had served on juries believed that a not proven verdict was an open verdict and that the

cases could be brought back to court. The people we are charging with the responsibility of arriving at verdicts in court cases share the same confusion as the general public about the not proven verdict. That cannot be good for the reputation, integrity and efficacy of the criminal justice system in Scotland.
Why is the not proven verdict an issue in Scotland, and why should it have become a matter of public controversy in Scotland? It is not simply because of the Amanda Duffy case, although that was horrifying and devastating to the individual concerned, to her parents and to members of the local community in my constituency. That was not the issue that brought the concern to the public mind, although the campaigning zeal of the Duffys certainly made it a bigger issue that it might have been.
It was always a matter of controversy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) represented the constituency of Aberdeen, South, he presented a private Member's Bill to abolish that verdict. The controversy rumbled on long before the murder of Amanda Duffy.
There is worry and concern in Scotland about the presumption of innocence. It was interesting that the hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East, with all his legal reputation and his affection and admiration for the Scottish legal system, did not find it necessary even to mention the concept of the presumption of innocence that lies at the heart of the legal system in our democracy. Everyone is presumed to be innocent unless he or she is found guilty beyond the bounds of reasonable doubt.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's attack on me is unjustified. Anyone who are knows anything about the Scottish legal system knows that the presumption of innocence stands at its heart. I would not have thought that, in a debate largely involving Scottish Members, it should be necessary to rehearse something that we know to be fundamental.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is fundamental, but the contention is that a not proven verdict undermines the presumption of innocence. We can either believe that the presumption of innocence is important and must be protected or we can believe in its limitation by the not proven verdict. We cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the fact that there are two verdicts of acquittal does not undermine the presumption of innocence or the onus of proof that rests on the Crown throughout. If the onus of proof is not discharged, the jury can choose to say that the individual is not guilty, which is a certificate of credibility, or that the individual is not proven.

Mr. Robertson: It is not the individual, but the case, that is found to be not proven. The individual is presumed to be innocent. It is an acquittal, but not proven.
The hon. and learned Gentleman seems unusually satisfied with the fact that someone can leave a court with less than a full acquittal. That must undermine fundamentally the presumption of innocence because, whatever he says, people leave court with a not proven verdict and a stain on their reputation; the community at large in Scotland then assumes that the individual was


guilty, but there was not enough evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends seem to imply that when they talk about other court cases, including rape cases, where people are satisfied with a not proven verdict as it appears to be different from a full acquittal. We should not be satisfied with the differentiation between the two categories, and a not proven verdict certainly undermines the presumption of innocence.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman said that the people of Scotland take a certain view following a case resulting in a not proven verdict. I suggest that there are cases where someone was found not guilty, but people in Scotland felt that that person was guilty but the case failed because the evidence did not stand up. It does not change attitudes and views. If the hon. Gentleman calls that in aid to support his case, he must realise that such a view is prominent when the feeling is that the Crown has somehow failed to make a case in court against an individual.

Mr. Robertson: If the Crown fails to make the case, the individual deserves to leave the court with a verdict of not guilty, whatever the assumption may be. Not proven is a particular category designed to make sure that a person leaves the court with less than a full acquittal and less than the presumption of innocence with which that individual should enter and leave the court in circumstances where the Crown has not been able to persuade the jury that the individual is guilty. There is a legacy of frustration left behind by victims and their families where all that remains is a mystery. People throughout Scotland feel that the not proven verdict leaves in its wake an air of constant frustration and aggravation that cannot do the system any good.
4.30 pm
I am not alone in that view. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian quoted the Lord Advocate. I know that we are not permitted to quote his speeches in the House of Lords, but in this instance he was speaking to Scotland on Sunday. He is Scotland's senior Law Officer and if the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—who has just rapidly departed the Chamber—is influenced by lawyers, presumably the Lord Advocate is someone to whom he should listen.
Despite the fact that the Lord Advocate is a member of the Government, he has a refreshingly high reputation as a Scottish Office Minister. He told Scotland on Sunday:
It is certainly something which, if one were starting out to design a legal system today, starting afresh, I don't think there's any evidence that you would introduce three verdicts. I don't think it is something that has such obvious benefits that one would design it in.
If that is a defence of the not proven verdict, it is mighty weak. The Lord Advocate seems to be suggesting, given the opportunity that the Bill presents, that we should design out the not proven verdict—if it should have been designed in the first place.
More devastating even than the words of the Lord Advocate were those of the Royal Commission on criminal justice in England and Wales. After extensive studies and deliberation, it published the year before last its conclusions on changes that should be made to the English system, bearing in mind some of the advantageous and strong aspects of the Scottish system. In 1992, the Lord Advocate wrote to me:
Although the remit of the Royal Commission does not extend to Scotland, the Secretary of State has already undertaken to give careful consideration to any recommendations which have a bearing

on the Scottish criminal justice system. Due consideration will be given to anything which the Royal Commission may have to say about the Not Proven verdict at that time.
The eyes of the Scottish Office and of the Secretary of State were on the deliberations, and the royal commission was aware that people in Scotland—especially those responsible for such legislation—would study its recommendations carefully. At paragraph 75, the royal commission, chaired by Viscount Runciman, said of Scotland's unique not proven verdict:
During our deliberations we considered the case for introducing into England and Wales the Scottish verdict of 'not proven'. This is available in Scotland as an alternative to 'not guilty' although it still counts as an acquittal. Most of those who gave evidence to us did not favour such a verdict. We too regard it as an unsatisfactory option, particularly from the point of view of the defendant, who is left with a cloud hanging over his or her reputation. If the jury does not convict, it means that the prosecution have been unable to discharge the burden of proof and the defendant should in our view be entitled to the verdict of not guilty.

Mr. William Ross: How many accused people did the hon. Gentleman find during his extensive studies who were dissatisfied with a verdict of not proven being brought against them?

Mr. Robertson: Quite a number. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said that many of his clients were extremely pleased with a not proven verdict. The people who were happiest were those who were guilty but got off. During the Duffy campaign, the campaigners met a lady who had been charged with resetting a girocheque. The case went to trial and was found not proven. Weeks later, a postman in the same area was charged with resetting girocheques, including those for which the lady had been charged and convicted. The not proven verdict will stay with her. Technically, it was an acquittal, but there will be a stain on her character for the rest of her life. There are people who feel that a stain remains on their character.
I quoted a passage from the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice. It reflected an emphatic view, which happens to be shared by the hon. Member who represents the Duffy family. It is the view of the royal commission that was set up by the Government to examine in enormous depth all aspects of the English criminal justice system. The royal commission was asked to examine what parts of the Scottish system should be translated to the English system. I repeat its conclusion:
If the jury does not convict, it means that the prosecution have been unable to discharge the burden of proof and the defendant should in our view be entitled to a verdict of not guilty.
It should not be assumed that, because there was a campaign about a murder one Saturday night in Hamilton town centre, the verdicts of individual courts can also be assumed. We want to eliminate the possibility that juries will go for a cop-out verdict that leaves neither the defendant nor the victim satisfied at the end of the day.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that the removal of the not proven verdict would lead to more miscarriages of justice, on the ground that there would be more guilty verdicts instead of acquittal non proven verdicts. I ask my hon. Friend and others who think along those lines whether it would have been better in cases in England if the stain on the characters of the defendants lived on when they were ultimately found to be innocent. Does anyone imagine that the campaign that was mounted on behalf of


the Birmingham Six would have continued with the vigour and ultimate success that it reflected if those defendants had been found not proven instead of guilty?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: There would have been one consequence. They would not have spent many years in prison.

Mr. Robertson: Yes, that would have been one consequence. But, at the end of the day, they would not have been proved to be innocent. Does anyone imagine that those defendants would not have been suspected of guilt throughout the campaign? The reality is that, at the end of the campaign, the six were found to be innocent. They were not acquitted not proven, with the reputation that goes with that.

Mr. Chisholm: It is my view that the alternative to not proven is not guilty. The implication behind the argument of those who say that the removal of the not proven verdict will lead to more convictions is that there will be more miscarriages of justice. It is those who want to get rid of the verdict who tend to make the assumption that there will be more convictions.

Mr. Robertson: No, they do not make that assumption. There will be more guilty verdicts and more not guilty verdicts. The third of the verdicts that are not proven will have to be distributed either as guilty or not guilty, or proven or charge proved, whatever terminology is adopted. The campaign is designed to reduce the number of verdicts to two, the number that applies in every other country. It is not directed to decide which of the various terms will be used.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian is not approaching the problem in rape cases in the right way. If there is a problem in rape cases in securing convictions—I am sure that I have the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East on my side—it does not rest with the number of verdicts or the potential for acquittal; the problem rests with the mechanisms by which the evidence is presented, including the standard of proof required. It has nothing to do with the verdicts that are available.
I have responded in writing to the rape crisis centres that have written to me. I have told them that, if they are satisfied with juries going for the not proven cop-out, they are doing a disservice to those who find themselves in court.

Mr. Wallace: It is important that the hon. Gentleman clarifies that point as, unreasonably, other inferences may be drawn from what he said, and from what his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, when referring to the problem of the standard of proof in rape trials. Is it the policy of the Labour party that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt? That is the standard of proof. Is there any question in rape trials that that standard of proof should be changed?

Mr. Robertson: Of course not. The whole question of how rape trials should be conducted and the admissibility of proof must be looked at separately and distinctly from the verdicts. People who take consolation from there being two acquittal verdicts do not address the serious problem with getting convictions in rape cases. The whole

basis of what I am saying today and what I have said before is that the presumption of innocence must remain. The standard of proof must also remain.
If there is a problem in dealing with allegations of rape and convictions in rape cases, it has nothing whatever to do with the verdicts. Indeed, one of the strong criticisms of the not proven verdict is that, increasingly, juries are using it as a cop-out from making a decision. The decision might be for guilty or not guilty, but having the cop-out relieves juries, especially in rape trials, of the obligation of coming to a firm conclusion on what they have heard in court.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East says that my hon. Friend's new clause is defective because there are no consequential amendments and it does not take into account any consequential effects that it would have if passed. The fact is that the issue of the not proven verdict stands on its own. Yes, it may ultimately be connected with the majority that applies in a Scottish jury, but it is not inextricably linked to it. They both stand on their own and they can be adjusted on their own.
I personally believe that, if we were to remove the not proven verdict, ideally we should then change the majority required for a jury to convict; but there is no necessity to do that simply as a consequence of the new clause. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), in trying to undermine my hon. Friend's new clause, is taking the argument—it is a further argument rather than part of exactly the same argument—further.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North, who has departed, having given us the benefit of his wisdom, tells us that we should listen to experts, because on this rare occasion he happens to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. The fact that he can ignore practically everything else that the hon. and learned Gentleman says seems to have no consequence at all. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to establish a precedent, that we should always listen to the lawyers, that only lawyers can be experts on the law, when he is so eloquent in his praise of the hon. and—I suppose that we have to say "learned"—Gentleman on this occasion.
The Lord Chancellor of England, who does not hold any English legal qualification at all, takes almost exactly the same view. If the legal profession in England is united on one thing, the Lord Chancellor will be determined to alter it, and he has not been put off at all by the massed ranks of the English legal establishment. I think that these arguments do not hold strongly.
Who at the end of the day is still in favour of three verdicts in the Scottish courts? Not the victims, who are left hanging in the air of frustration and mystery that comes at the end of a trial when a not proven verdict is handed down. Certainly not the recipient, unless he or she was guilty and is relieved at having been acquitted, because the recipient is left with a stigma, which, as the English royal commission identified, is impossible for him or her to clear.
The system cannot be satisfied with a situation that undermines the presumption of innocence. The public, who are at best confused by,and at worst hostile to the idea of the not proven verdict, certainly are not in favour of having three verdicts. The legal profession may well be, especially those who are in criminal cases on the defence side, because it is an entirely suitable deployment


of their skills to go for three verdicts instead of just two. Those who were clearly guilty but feel that they have got off could be in favour of it as well.
Much more seriously, juries who do not want to take a straightforward decision based on the case that has been put before them will be pleased to have three verdicts in the Scottish courts. I do not believe that that is a sufficient strength of opinion to weigh against the arguments that have been deployed.
4.45 pm
I accept that there are strong views on the other side of the issue. There are people who believe that three verdicts make our system more flexible, who believe that three verdicts give the jury in a Scottish trial more choice and, therefore, more chances to get it right at the end of the trial, and there are some people in Scotland who firmly believe that we should not bring our legal system into line with those in every other country in the world. They are entitled to that view. I disagree with them, but it is a strong view and many hon. Members have expressed it in this brief debate.
The Opposition will have a free vote, and my hon. Friends who have listened to the debate and others can vote according to their conscience and according to the way in which they feel their opinion should go. I personally will be in the Aye Lobby at the end of the debate.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been a useful debate. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) suggested that a not proven verdict would result in no further proceedings, but proceedings can be taken against another person—for example, an associate of the person who was the subject of the not proven verdict. That is an important point.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made a persuasive and convincing speech. Most judges, whether in the sheriff, district or High Court, would agree with the tenor of what he was saying. Certainly, in relation to witnesses in rape cases, what he said was particularly relevant and strongly felt.
I can tell the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that there have been huge improvements in the treatment of rape cases. The police are now much more sensitive in their dealings with such cases, and great efforts have been made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, steps forward on video evidence have already been taken in legislative provisions. Clauses 17 to 20 of the Bill will facilitate the giving of evidence by other witnesses for whom it would be particularly distressing to recount events in court. No doubt we shall constantly review that matter in future years.

Mrs. Fyfe: We all appreciate that there have been some improvements in the way in which rape cases are conducted in court, but nevertheless we still have to examine the fact that there are a surprisingly large number of acquittals, whether they are acquittals on the basis of a not guilty or a not proven verdict. We cannot believe that so many women are lying, so has the Minister any proposals to undertake further reforms in the way in which rape trials in particular are conducted? If so, could we see them before the Bill is concluded?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady raises a rather different point concerning the trauma experienced

by witnesses in rape cases or cases of serious sexual assault when, having gone through the process of giving evidence, they find that their evidence is disbelieved. The not proven verdict is a help in such circumstances because it means that the woman will feel that her evidence has not been given in vain and has been registered strongly by the jury in its verdict.
I did once secure the acquittal of a man on a not proven verdict whose case arose out of an episode in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I can say only that he was grateful for that verdict, as no doubt would many of the clients of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East have been. Therefore, I would not for a moment suggest that all the representations are one way.
The three-verdict system has been part of the Scottish criminal law for more than two and a half centuries, but we do not regard the not proven verdict as anachronistic. It has been used in a significant number of cases—broadly one fifth of cases in recent times.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that the not proven verdict is available not only to jurors but, in certain cases, to judges? It is available to justices of the peace and sheriffs sitting in summary jurisdiction.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is true.
Our consultation exercise of 1994 cleared up many misunderstandings. Two out of three responses supported the retention of the three verdicts. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) pointed out, a substantial body of opinion supports the not proven verdict, and the balance of opinion in our consultation was strongly in favour of its retention. Its practical usefulness is shown by the fact that it continues to be used regularly; it may also be a more satisfactory acquittal verdict for many victims and witnesses, who feel in such cases that their evidence has not been disbelieved. That partly meets the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
In the light of the evidence amassed by the consultations, I believe that the new clause should be rejected and that the not proven verdict should be retained.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing characteristic courtesy in giving way. A moment ago, referring to my intervention, he suggested that complainants in rape cases were treated more compassionately than hitherto. No one would deny that, and the change has been welcome; but, in referring to clauses 17 to 24, was the Minister suggesting that complainants in such cases would receive protection akin to that given to child witnesses by way of sections 33 to 35 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993? If so, I shall be the first to stand up and cheer him.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 18 will enable a video-recorded statement by a witness who gives evidence and adopts that statement to be admitted as evidence of the facts spoken to in the statement. I realise that not all the measures in the Bill may go as far as the hon. Gentleman would like them to, but the position will be reviewed in due course.
Earlier, I mentioned the case of Madeleine Smith, a young girl charged with poisoning her boyfriend. The jury could not bear the thought of bringing in a guilty verdict and sending to the gallows a vivacious young girl with


much to offer in the future. That is why it brought in its not proven verdict—although jury members frankly admitted that they did not believe it.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister said that this had been a useful debate. I submit that it will have been useful only if it leads to our removing the anomalous verdict of not proven from the Scottish legal system.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made an interesting little speech, showing his fawning support for everything that QCs ever say and his keenness on supporting all that is good in Scotland. Given his record of voting to dismantle much that is good in Scotland over the past 16 years, many of us will take that with a heavy pinch of salt.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: Must you?

Mr. Walker: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is courteous. Does he not agree that, when his record of voting against measures that he thinks affect Scotland adversely in opposition to his party is equal to mine, he can be as critical as he likes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that that is one-all.

Mr. Home Robertson: I had forgotten that the hon. Member for Tayside, North was so sensitive. I shall try to be more careful in future.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made some serious points and some lawyer's points: there is, of course, a distinction. He raised a serious point about majority verdicts. He is right: if the not proven verdict were removed from the menu available to juries, it would be necessary to do away with the simple majority that is currently required in Scotland. That is a matter which would need to be addressed in short order.
My complaint about the Government is that they have been dancing around the issue for a long time. They keep finding different excuses for not changing the law. The matter has been considered for them enough. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East is right to say that the matter could and should be addressed. However, I found his other points less persuasive.
I appreciate that it must be attractive for a defence counsel to have the long-stop of persuading a jury that there is sufficient doubt to bring in a not proven verdict. The trouble is that there is a fundamental lack of logic in the three-option list of verdicts. One can acquit, convict or produce what can be best be described as a grudging acquittal. However, it is still an acquittal. There is no logic in a verdict of that nature. It simply creates the odd phenomenon of either qualified innocence, which carries a stigma—a principle that I find repugnant—or qualified guilt, which carries no penalty. What earthly use can that serve? It is a major anomaly, which ought to be addressed. The House is the only place where it can be addressed until such time as we have a Scottish Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) raised serious concerns about the implications of the abolition of the not proven verdict for rape cases. If there are such concerns, he is right to express them and I appreciate the anxiety that is felt. However, my hon.

Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made the point that there are other ways to ensure that there is better quality and that more effective evidence can be laid in such cases to make it easier to get convictions, where they are appropriate.
I feel that the priority must be good justice. The not proven verdict provides no justice for anybody. For that reason, I am inclined to press new clause 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 325.

Division No. 159]
[5.00 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Ashton, Joe
Jamieson, David


Austin-Walker, John
Jowell, Tessa


Barnes, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Terry


Bayley, Hugh
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bell, Stuart
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Macdonald, Calum


Benton, Joe
McFall, John


Berry, Roger
McMaster, Gordon


Bradley, Keith
McNamara, Kevin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Caborn, Richard
Maxton, John


Callaghan, Jim
Meacher, Michael


Campbell-Savours, D N
Michael, Alun


Clapham, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Milburn, Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Miller, Andrew


Clelland, David
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Coffey, Ann
Morgan, Rhodri


Cohen, Harry
Morley, Elliot


Cousins, Jim
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mullin, Chris


Denham, John
Murphy, Paul


Dixon, Don
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Dowd, Jim
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Olner, Bill


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Parry, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pickthall, Colin


Etherington, Bill
Pope, Greg


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Fisher, Mark
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Flynn, Paul
Purchase, Ken


Fraser, John
Radice, Giles


Fyfe, Maria
Raynsford, Nick


Galbraith, Sam
Reid, Dr John


Gapes, Mike
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Garrett, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Gerrard, Neil
Rogers, Allan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rowlands, Ted


Gordon, Mildred
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Spellar, John


Hall, Mike
Steinberg, Gerry


Hanson, David
Stevenson, George


Henderson, Doug
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Heppell, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Timms, Stephen


Hoon, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hutton.John



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ingram, Adam
Mrs. Helen Liddell and


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Mr. John Home Robertson.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Alistair


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Davidson, Ian


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Day, Stephen


Alton, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ancram, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Donohoe, Brian H


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Baldry, Tony
Elletson, Harold


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Enright, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Battle, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evennett, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bermingham, Gerald
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Booth, Hartley
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brandreth, Gyles
Foulkes, George


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Sir Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gardiner, Sir George


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gillan, Cheryl


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Godsiff, Roger


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorst, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Graham, Thomas


Chidgey, David
Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hardy, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David


Corbett, Robin
Hawkins, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hawksley, Warren


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hayes, Jerry


Corston, Jean
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cummings, John
Hendry, Charles


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hicks, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence





Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hoyle, Doug
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Neill, Martin


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunter, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Page, Richard


Jack, Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jenkin, Bernard
Pawsey, James


Jessel, Toby
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pickles, Eric


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Powell, William (Corby)


Key, Robert
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Rendel, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Richards, Rod


Kirkhope, Timothy
Riddick, Graham


Kirkwood, Archy
Robathan, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knox, Sir David
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Simpson, Alan


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Luff, Peter
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


McAllion, John
Speed, Sir Keith


McAvoy, Thomas
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madden, Max
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maddock, Diana
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mandelson, Peter
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marttew, Eric
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meale,Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Touhig, Don


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mudie, George
Tredinnick, David






Trotter, Neville
Whittingdale, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wicks, Malcolm


Tyler, Paul
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Walden, George
Willetts, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)


Wallace, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ward, John
Wise, Audrey


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watson, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Michael Bates and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

LODGING OF APPEALS

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, in all criminal proceedings any appeals shall be lodged with the Clerk of Court within fourteen days of the conviction, sentence, judgement, order pronounced, procedure, conduct or issue giving rise to the appeal or on cause shown at such later date as the court may allow.
(2) The appeal shall be in writing, and shall be in such form and subject to such procedure as shall be prescribed by Act of Adjournal.
(3) This section shall not apply to the following appeals—

(a) appeals in terms of section 76(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975;
(b) appeals in terms of section 334(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975; and
(c) appeals in terms of section 228(a) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 has been tabled to create a unified and streamlined appeals structure. Currently, there are various types of appeals such as bills of suspension and bills of advocation under section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. The new clause is designed to harmonise procedures—hence subsection (2) of it. It would also harmonise the form of all appeals and make them much more straightforward and less convoluted. It would allow for all types of appeals to be subject to a single time limit of 14 days as opposed to the present varying time limits. For example, a written intimation of intention of appeal must be lodged within 14 days, a written note of appeal within six weeks and a note of appeal against sentence within two weeks. There is already provision in the Bill for the extension of appeals and our new clause would not touch that.
Sections 76(a) and 334(2)(a) of the 1975 Act deal with appeals from preliminary diets. Those diets deal with matters of competency, relevancy, pleas in bar of trial and any other miscellaneous matters required to be raised. An appeal from a decision at a preliminary diet must be taken two days after such decision and, therefore, the 14-day time limit in the new clause should not be relevant.
Section 228(a) and (c) deal with an appeal on indictment against conviction and against conviction and sentence. Those sections have been excluded because when there is an appeal against conviction, an intimation of intention to appeal is lodged and the specific grounds of appeal are not usually framed until the accused and his

representatives receive a copy of the judge's charge to the jury. The 14-day time limit would therefore be inappropriate because the judge's charge to the jury is not normally received until six to eight weeks after the appeal against conviction is marked. With those comments in mind, we offer the new clause for the Government's consideration.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause seeks to introduce a uniform time limit for all appeals, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has suggested, excluding appeals from preliminary diets and solemn appeals against conviction or conviction and sentence. As the drafting of the new clause implicitly acknowledges, however, by excluding certain categories of appeal the time limit which should reasonably be allowed for the lodging of an appeal must depend on the complexity of the particular type of appeal procedure involved.
We believe that to impose a uniform time limit would remove the current flexibility, since the time limit is individually set to suit the nature of each specific appeal procedure. In some cases, a time limit of 14 days would be longer than is necessary and would needlessly delay proceedings; in other more complex appeals, such a time limit would be too short and would result in frequent applications to the court to extend the time limit on cause shown.
It has been suggested that the new clause would enable a single form to be used which would cover all the essential information required and cut the number of forms currently in use. In fact, the form used in each appeal procedure is specified by act of adjournal made by the High Court and the new clause would not change that. It is for the High Court to decide whether a separate form is required for each type of appeal or whether certain types of appeal could use a combined form. It would not be appropriate for that to be prescribed in primary legislation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton will acknowledge that it is more appropriate to retain the current flexibility in specifying the time limit individually for each type of appeal procedure and to leave with the High Court the discretion to determine the most appropriate forms of appeal. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.

Mr. McFall: I agree entirely with the Minister's views on the need for the flexibility of the High Court, but there is also a need for simplicity and harmonisation, which is absent at the moment. I ask the Government to consider that in future legislation. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

VICTIM LIAISON

'.—Every court with criminal jurisdiction shall appoint a victim liaison officer who shall—

(a) contact each complainer and ascertain whether they require—

(i) advice or guidance regarding the procedure adopted by the Court,


(ii) information regarding the progress of the case and its outcome, and
(iii) information regarding support services for victims; and

(b) having ascertained the needs of the complainer, provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 concerns the need for a victim liaison officer to be appointed by the courts. When we discussed a similar new clause in Committee, we had a positive and constructive debate. We have redrafted the new clause because it was pointed out in Committee that the previous new clause had a certain rigidity about it. In paragraph (b) of the new clause, we have inserted that the victim liaison officer
having ascertained the needs of the complainer, provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be.'.
The victim liaison officer would have flexibility, as it was pointed out in Committee that perhaps not everyone involved would wish to be informed about the progress or otherwise of a case.
It is important to recognise in this debate that the Scottish legal system still has a long way to go before it treats victims properly. Information should flow from the justice system to the victim. Information from the police with whom the victim was initially involved, the procurator fiscal's departments and the courts should be sent to the victim and the victim's family. A wide definition of victim should be adopted, simply because the victim might be in hospital, for example, and the victim's family would need to be consulted on certain issues.
On the day the original new clause 6 was moved in Committee, the Minister was kind enough to send all members of the Committee a copy of a Scottish Office research paper on information needs of victims. That information came out only on that day and we had insufficient time—the Minister admitted that he, too, had insufficient time—to consider it in detail. In retrospect, we find that the central message of the report is that victims are still largely being kept in the dark.
In compiling the report, 915 victims of crime were interviewed. It found that the police were the best at telling victims and witnesses what was happening with a case and the courts and the procurator fiscal system were the worst. For example, 47 per cent. of victims were contacted by the police, less than a quarter had any contact with the procurator fiscal and only 13 per cent. were contacted by the courts. Elderly women were much more likely to be kept informed.
The report also found that a third of victims of crimes which were solved were not told that someone had been charged, more than half of the victims of unsolved crimes were not told that no charges had been brought and in more than 40 per cent. of cases in which the victims knew that someone had been charged, they were not told whether the case went to court. A further 58 per cent. had not learnt of the outcome more than 12 months after they reported the crime.
It is important to note that only 10 per cent. thought that they had been kept very well informed of key developments in the case and more than half said that they had been poorly informed. More than 90 per cent. of those who were not told that someone had been charged said that they had wanted that information and 85 per cent. of those interviewed said that they wanted to know the outcome of the case.
The report said that there was
a significant level of unmet need for information… Sometimes victims were unhappy with the way they had been treated by criminal justice agencies. This was sometimes due to 'insensitive handling' rather than a lack of information.
The report is not bad in itself but, as we noted in the debate in Committee, it was undertaken by a London-based firm known as MVA Consultancy. I have examined the articles and memorandum of that company, and it deals mainly with business, planning, transport and so on. In Committee, I asked a question that is worth repeating: why did the Government not give that £34,000 contract to someone in Scotland, especially the Scottish universities, which know a great deal about the subject? That question is still valid.
On page 6 of the report, sections 2.3.10 and 2.3.11 tell us that the company sent out 600 questionnaires but that only 18 per cent. came back. The problem with that 18 per cent. was that the victims had been selected and stratified by the type of offence, and according to whether the crime was detected or undetected. Crimes were also grouped in four broad categories: assault, theft from a house, other theft and other crimes. The categories excluded serious offences such as rape, serious assault and murder; they also excluded victims' relatives and victims of domestic violence.
The authors of the report said that they excluded those individuals because they would have been precognosced by the procurator fiscal, whereas they wanted to interview people who had not been interviewed by the fiscal. What difference would it make to the statistics whether someone had been precognosced by the procurator fiscal, and how could the researchers know the seriousness of a crime when seriousness is a subjective and not an objective concept?
For example, the theft of a handbag from a young girt, if it contained only her make-up and other perfumery, may not be very serious, whereas the theft of a handbag from an 85-year-old lady, when it might contain her life savings, her birth certificate and some memorabilia, would be a serious offence with a traumatic effect on the individual victim. That illustrates the subjectivity of the idea of seriousness.
It is in precisely those cases, such as domestic violence, assault and murder, that we want to know whether the victims or their relatives have been consulted, and we want to know their views. There is a serious deficiency in the research, because it does not contain such information.
Victims and victim support must be taken seriously. The research paper tells us starkly that only 7 per cent. of victims had contact with Victim Support, and that almost 40 per cent. of those who had not had contact said that that was because no one had told them about it. In Committee we asked the Minister what the Government intended to do about that. If I remember correctly, he said that the information would be computerised so that it was readily available in the procurator fiscal's office and could be more widely consulted.
As the Government have made the idea that they care for victims the centrepiece of the law and order debate, that is an insufficient response. Their own research tells them that the victim is kept in the dark and is a subsidiary element in the whole process. That should not happen. The victim should be of primary concern, and the Government's record on the issue is deplorable.
The new clause asks the Government seriously to reconsider the situation and to tell us what they intend to do for victims in the Scottish criminal justice system. Will they sweep victims' needs under the carpet, as they do at the moment, or will they introduce a more formal set-up, involving Victim Support and other agencies, so that the victim will have assistance from the first minute that he or she is in contact with the police, the procurator fiscal and the courts?
The need for information to be conveyed thereafter, when the victim is away from court, is also paramount. We do not want to read of cases in which victims of rape are told by their neighbours that the accused is out on the streets again. It is the job of the Government and of the courts to ensure that the information is readily available, so the ball lands back in the Government's court. Let us hear the Minister's response and discover what their intentions are. I hope that the Minister will respond to the new clause in a positive and enlightening fashion to the new clause.

Mr. James Wallace: Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest, as in the past few days I have joined the ranks of those who have become victims of crime. I cannot honestly say that I have more than a passing academic interest in what happens to the culprit at the end of the day, but I recognise that, for many victims of crime, especially with crimes against the person when there has been an element of personal injury, that is of considerable importance to the victims.
Only in recent times have we as a society started to pay more attention to the victims of crime. I do not advocate that our criminal justice system should be turned into a system of victim vengeance. Vengeance should play no part in the criminal justice system. However, as a constituency Member I know of cases in which victims feel that they have been lost sight of as the case against the accused takes its course, and it is almost forgotten that at the outset there was a victim.
I am thinking of a particular case in which a young constituent was killed in a road accident. The parents found out only some time later that the case had gone to court and what the outcome had been. The aspect of that case which is relevant to the new clause is that, at the outset, during the initial months, the police officer who had been dealing with it had kept in close contact with the bereaved family. But, as such things happen—no one was at fault—the police officer was moved on to another posting and the contact was lost.
When that happens, the important ties that have been established are lost, and the victims tend to go by the hoard. That is not malicious or even negligent; it is simply that the system does not have a means of keeping people involved, especially in cases where there has been a guilty plea. Obviously, when the plea is not guilty the victim may have to come to court, which presents a different set of circumstances, in which one hopes that proper attention

will be paid to him or her. After a guilty plea, however, the victim is often lost from sight as the case is processed. But victims have an interest in knowing how our judicial system, acting on behalf of the community as a whole, has dealt with the perpetrator of the crime against them.
I welcome the general thrust of the new clause. It would be difficult and perhaps burdensome to say that the procedures laid down in it should take place in every single case, because that could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy. However, someone—perhaps someone in the sheriff clerk's office—should be identified as being responsible for ensuring that the interests of the victims of crime are considered. It can be a strange thing for people who have never attended court before, especially if, as victims, they will have to give evidence, to find themselves suddenly faced with the whole panoply of the law. Someone should sit down and talk the witness through the process. After all, the chances are that the witness will not be legally represented, although the accused and the Crown will be represented. Someone from the fiscal's department may have time to explain what will happen, but one suspects that that may not necessarily be the case in a busy sheriff court or the High Court.
There should be someone in the court to say what will happen when the witness goes in, who will be sitting where, and what the procedure will be. If the witness is giving evidence for the Crown, he should be told that he will be asked questions by the procurator fiscal and will then be cross-examined. A liaison officer could simplify the process and allow witnesses some inkling of what they can expect when they go into the court.
Equally, the other two paragraphs in the new clause state that a liaison officer should provide information regarding the progress of the case, or indicate cases in which the accused pleads guilty. The officer should also provide information on victim support services. Agencies and voluntary organisations which cater for the victims of crime are growing in number in our communities. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said in moving the new clause, the number of victims who make use of those organisations is relatively small because of the lack of basic information.
I understand that there will be the usual technical objections to the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which the new clause has been moved. There must be proper recognition in society of people who fall victim to crime. A lot of sympathy is expressed at present, but that sympathy must be translated into practical action.

Mrs. Fyfe: I want to make particular reference to the victims of rape. In the debate on new clause 5, the Minister seemed to believe that the retention of the not proven verdict went a long way towards satisfying the needs of rape victims. The question of not going into the sexual history of the victim should be applied in all cases—the judge should not be free to decide whether to do so.
It is not only a matter of protecting vulnerable witness, although that was a valuable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Counsel for the defence again and again ask questions relating to the clothing of the complainant, or


the fact that she was walking alone at night. Those issues should not be raised in an attempt to defend the accused and to try to put doubt in the minds of the jury. It is not a question of departing from the standard of the case being beyond reasonable doubt. I am referring to the issues that can be raised in court.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had an opportunity to speak to new clause 5. We are now on new clause 7, which deals with victim liaison; she must address her remarks to that subject.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to use that subject to lead into new clause 7. If we believe that victims need more support and help, new clause 7 could be of immense benefit. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support the new clause. He must be willing to discuss the problems that victims—I am referring particularly to rape victims—can experience.
I felt that I had to relate the Minister's remarks on new clause 5 to new clause 7 because it is important that he not only supports this new clause but goes further and discusses the needs of rape victims with rape crisis centres. He must see what else can be done to ensure that trials are conducted as fairly as possible and that victims are fairly represented so that a proper verdict is delivered. After all, that is the most important thing to a victim.
An organisation based in Glasgow called Families of Murder Victims has raised with me the fact that when a loved member of a family is murdered, no one explains anything to the relatives of the victim. They do not get a transcript of the trial, which is offered free to the defendant, and they are often made to sit in the same room as the family and friends of the person accused of the murder. Families of Murder Victims feel that relatives get a raw deal, and I hope that the Minister will refer to that point.

Dr. Godman: I was only too happy to add my name to the new clause, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will allow me to say that a more appropriate title might well have been "Witness Liaison Officer" or "Witness Adviser". We have seen a remarkable improvement in the assistance given to witnesses, particularly those whom I have long defined as vulnerable witnesses. New clause 7 would strengthen that most welcome development.
The Minister will surely agree that clause 18, while providing a most welcome step forward, falls far short of the provisions contained in sections 33 and 35 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. I am sure that the Minister was not attempting to compare clause 18 favourably with the two sections of the 1993 Act, but he will surely agree that much more assistance needs to be given to vulnerable witnesses.
Section 33 of the 1993 Act allows for the appointment of a commissioner—who could act as a witness adviser or a safeguard—who must act as an independent evidence-gatherer. Similarly, section 35 of the Act allows for a child's evidence to be given by television link. It is essential that the sheriff's office has a victim liaison officer—or witness liaison officer—where closed circuit television is used. I have looked at the installation in Greenock, and incidentally I am pleased to say that—judging from a recent letter I received from the Minister—it seems that the installation is to be permanent. That will be most welcome in Greenock, if not in Paisley.
If further use of television screens is to be made, a young witness would benefit from the advice of a "safeguarder" or adviser as envisaged in new clause 7. That will be extremely helpful whether the case takes place under what I call the old-fashioned proceedings or, under sections 33 and 35 of the 1993 Act, evidence is taken outwith the court room.
The Minister should have some sympathy for the new clause. As envisaged, the development of witness advisers could be as welcome and as radical as those sections of the 1993 Act, in which the Minister played an important role. By and large, the interests of child witnesses are now dealt with compassionately, and sheriffs and judges treat such vulnerable witnesses sympathetically. But that more sensible and compassionate approach does not deny the usefulness of the officer envisaged in the new clause.
Although most courts take care of the interests of vulnerable witnesses, how many sheriff courts and courts used by the High Court are in every sense barrier-free for the visually handicapped? I should have thought—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He is rather stretching this new clause.

Dr. Godman: I am sorry that you say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because an adviser could be in a powerful position to advise disabled witnesses, particularly where there are no facilities for that person to give his or her evidence in a comfortable frame of mind. In numerous courts the visually handicapped are handicapped as witnesses, and the same applies to people confined to wheelchairs. Such witnesses would benefit enormously from advice given by an adviser as defined in new clause 7. I fail to see why you brought me to order on that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did so simply because the hon. Gentleman was out of order. He was seeking information on exactly how many courts had this, that and the other. Although it may be appropriate for an adviser to seek such information, it is hardly appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to develop that line of argument this afternoon. I should be grateful if he would desist from doing so.

Dr. Godman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Such an adviser could play an important role in helping disabled witnesses. He could certainly help complainers in rape cases by advising on the likelihood of the court trawling through their sexual history on cross-examination. They should be regarded as vulnerable witnesses and a victim or witness liaison officer, as proposed in the new clause, could be of considerable help to complainers or child witnesses in such cases.
Another group who should be assisted by such an adviser is people with learning difficulties. I have always argued that they should be treated as vulnerable witnesses. It must be an awful ordeal for such people to go into a court of law. Some manage better than others, but with the help of an adviser the difficulties experienced by such people in attending and giving evidence in our courts would be dramatically reduced.
There is therefore a strong case for such an adviser to be employed by the courts' administration solely for the purpose of easing the difficulties faced by vulnerable witnesses.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Although we debated this issue thoroughly in Committee, I am happy that we


have returned to it today, because it is extremely important. It gives me an opportunity to repeat the Government's commitment to ensuring that victims are dealt with correctly and sensitively.
Victims have an important place in our criminal justice system, which must be fully recognised. If victims were to lose faith in how the system treated them or delivered justice, fewer would report crimes or act as witnesses. That in turn would reduce the system's effectiveness and capacity to identify offenders and bring them to justice.
I have much sympathy with the sentiments behind the new clause. All coherent and sensible measures to improve the position of victims are to be welcomed. But the statutory path suggested by the new clause is the wrong one to follow. The right path is the one on which we have already embarked, which builds on much existing good work being carried out by the agencies of the criminal justice system, based on research and pilot projects.
5.45 pm
Unlike the new clause, our support for victims is not only court-based. Under the justice charter, police forces are expected to put victims in touch with local victim support schemes if the victim so wishes, and all police forces have an official policy to provide the necessary information to victims. Equally, once a trial is over, the efforts of Victim Support (Scotland) will continue to support victims who still need emotional support. Government funding to Victim Support (Scotland) has increased enormously from £600 in 1985 to £878,000 in 1994 and it is being increased by a further 11 per cent. this year up to £1 million.
I was specifically asked in Committee about action that we shall take in the light of the research report. I say to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that the contract for research on the information needs of victims was put out to selective tender and was won by MVA in December 1993 for a total of more than £34,000, which has now been paid in full. Most of the research commissioned by the Scottish Office's criminal research office is undertaken by Scottish universities. That research required expertise in what could be described as "market research"—sending out questionnaires to large numbers of individuals. MVA was considered to have the expertise available as well as previous experience in Scottish criminal justice. I cannot say at this time who else submitted proposals for that research, but I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He mentioned research. Does he accept that, as I said earlier, the crimes that were excluded from paragraphs 2, 3, 10 and 11 included those such as rape and other sexual assault? It is on precisely such areas that we need information. As a result, does he accept that that research is deficient in terms of what we do in the future?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Any research is not necessarily complete, but it must be used as a basis for going forward. If further evidence is required we could usefully look into that. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to the Minister of State responsible.
The report makes it clear that there is an unmet demand for more information, and we acknowledge that there is definitely room for improvement. To construct a system to cope effectively, speedily and comprehensively, and at a

reasonable cost, with the provision of more information to victims, as outlined in the report, is no easy task, nor can it be done overnight, but since the report's publication we have made a number of initial moves.
First, the report suggested that local police guidelines on the provision of information could be operated much more consistently and we are pursuing that matter with chief police officers in Scotland to see how they could achieve greater reliability and coverage in keeping victims informed of progress. Secondly, we have accepted an invitation from Victim Support (Scotland) to participate in a steering group formed to consider proposals for pilot projects targeted on supporting victim witnesses in court.
The Crown Office obviously has a leading role to play in providing case-specific information at certain stages of the process. The Lord Advocate and his officials will proceed in relation to aspects of the report that fairly fall to them and to procurators fiscal.
I strike a note of caution. The research findings clearly highlighted the fact that the majority of victims definitely want to be well informed about case-specific information, general criminal justice procedures and contact points for assistance. However, it is clear from the report that a range of options is available for providing that additional information, which might work differently in practice.
Under, for example, the first option, victims of serious offences and vulnerable witnesses would be given information at key stages but other victims would have to telephone for information. That is attractive, as it seeks to target the provision of information, but, as the report says, that gives no guarantee that the victims who most need or want it would automatically receive what they require.
The second option, whereby victims would opt into a system of automatic information provision, largely gets round the problem of victim selection associated with the first option. However, as with the third option, whereby all victims would automatically be kept informed, it is questionable whether it would be a wise use of taxpayers' funds to place no limits on the supply of information, especially where the case concerned might be minor. In addition, the third option takes no account of those victims who do not want information, who may simply want to put the experience of the crime behind them.
All those considerations need to be given careful thought. Even Victim Support (Scotland) remains in the process of digesting the report and reaching an opinion about the options.
I have said to the hon. Member for Dumbarton that we will carefully consider all the issues, and consider whether it is necessary to prepare a leaflet for victims so that they should be better informed.
To summarise, I must restate our opposition to the new clause. Although the sentiment is laudable, the amendment is misguided. Better victim liaison will not be achieved by placing such a statutory duty on the courts. Instead we should pursue, as the Scottish Office is already, a flexible and co-ordinated approach throughout all agencies of the criminal justice system, working in close contact with Victim Support (Scotland) and other voluntary organisations.
With those assurances in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton will not press his amendment.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his reply, but a deficiency remains. [Interruption.] The Minister has kindly replied to me, so I would not say that.
There is a deficiency in the Government's approach because the figures that stand out are that only 7 per cent. of victims had contact with Victim Support (Scotland). What will the Government do to bring victims far more into the mainstream regarding the courts? Will he reflect on the fact that two out of every five victims who were contacted by Victim Support (Scotland) said that they had not contacted victim support because no one had told them of its existence?
If there is a dearth of information in the first place, the Minister's suggestion that a leaflet be produced for victims should be implemented immediately. That is important.
The Minister said that the new clause was inflexible because it imposed a statutory duty. However, subsection (b) offers flexibility because we say in that,
having ascertained the needs of the complainer,
the victim liaison officer would
provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be.
Flexibility is therefore built into the new clause.
I took the arguments made by hon. Members. For example, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that someone from, perhaps, the procurator fiscal's department should act as a victim liaison officer. At the moment, each department is charged with keeping the victim informed voluntarily, but it does not happen. There must be some co-ordination. The victim liaison officer, being appointed by a court with criminal jurisdiction, would satisfy that demand. It would allow for someone to sit down and talk to witnesses and victims.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, the nomenclature of a witness liaison officer may be more appropriate. Regardless of nomenclature, there is a need for victim support.
The Government's lack of financial support is reprehensible. Victim Support (Scotland) has provided briefings to us as Members of Parliament. One briefing mentioned the need for fair compensation for crime victims by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It is absurd that the board would still award £1,000 for a child who has been sexually assaulted, compared with £1,250 for an adult who suffers a dislocated finger.
The Government's attitude to that is topsy-turvy. It is time that they entered the real world. The least that the Minister should do is to take the issue seriously so that victims receive the message from the debate that they do have a place in the criminal justice system. The Opposition suggest that they have a primary place; the Government have relegated them to the second and third division. We consider that their needs are much more important than that, and should be considered.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 259.

Division No. 160]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart


Austin-Walker, John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Barnes, Harry
Bennett, Andrew F


Barron, Kevin
Benton, Joe





Bermingham, Gerald
Harvey, Nick


Berry, Roger
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Heppell, John


Blunkett, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bradley, Keith
Hodge, Margaret


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hoyle, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Byers, Stephen
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim
Hutton, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Chidgey, David
Jamieson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jowell, Tessa


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Khabra, Piara S


Clelland, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Coffey, Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Connarty, Michael
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Corston, Jean
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Roseanna
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
Macdonald, Calum


Davidson, Ian
McFall, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McMaster, Gordon


Denham, John
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Maddock, Diana


Donohoe, Brian H
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Enright, Derek
Meale, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gapes, Mike
Mudie, George


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Gordon, Mildred
Olner, Bill


Graham, Thomas
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Patchett, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Pickthall, Colin


Gunnell, John
Pike, Peter L


Hall, Mike
Pope, Greg


Hanson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)






Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stevenson, George


Primarolo, Dawn
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raynsford, Nick
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Reid, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Touhig, Don


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Turner, Dennis


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tyler, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Watson, Mike


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew


Ruddock, Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wise, Audrey


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Worthington, Tony


Snape, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spellar, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Ms Estelle Morris and


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Congdon, David


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ashby, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
unninghan, Roseanna


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Day, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Batiste, Spencer
Devlin, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evennett, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forth, Eric


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fry, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Gale, Roger


Clappison, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Garnier, Edward





Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Heald, Oliver
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Richards, Rod


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Riddick, Graham


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hunter, Andrew
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sackville, Tom


Jenkin, Bernard
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spink, Dr Robert


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spring, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Legg, Barry
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sweeney, Walter


Lord, Michael
Sykes, John


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


MacKay, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclean, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Madel, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Malone, Gerald
Tredinnick, David


Mans, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marlow, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Viggers, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Walden, George






Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wilkinson, John


Ward, John
Willetts, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Derek Conway and


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

JUDICIAL EXAMINATION

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 166, in page 6, line 40, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 167, in page 6, line 42, at end insert—
'; and
(c) in paragraph (b) after the words "allegedly made" there shall be inserted "and in summary of the evidence upon which the Crown intends to proceed.".'.
No. 168, in page 7, line 3, at end insert—
'(3A) In subsection (4)—

(a) leave out the words "With the permission of the sheriff'; and
(b) after the words "accused may" there shall be inserted "object to any question asked by the prosecutor and".'.

Mr. McFall: I draw particular attention to amendments Nos. 167 and 168. Amendment No. 167 would ensure that an accused person who is subject to judicial examination should have access to a summary of information upon which the Crown is basing its case. At a judicial examination, the prosecutor can ask an accused person about an extra judicial admission only if the accused has received a copy of the written record of the confession.
Under the terms of the Bill, the prosecutor will be able to ask questions designed to elicit an admission. Amendment No. 167 would redress the balance between the prosecutor and the accused in judicial examination by ensuring that such questions can be asked only if the accused has also received a copy of the summary of evidence. If the prosecution has the right and the entitlement to ask questions in order to elicit an admission, surely the defence has the right to object to that. The defence should know the facts upon which the prosecution is relying and, with that in mind, we tabled amendment No. 167.
Under the terms of the Bill, the defence can say something only with the permission of the sheriff and the accused can be asked questions for the purpose of clarification only with the permission of the sheriff. Amendment No. 168 would eliminate the need to ask the sheriff's permission and add the accused's right to object. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am afraid that I fail to see the need for amendments Nos. 166, 167 and 168, despite the explanations offered by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). The main amendments that the Bill will make to the judicial examination process are limited to trying to ensure that the prosecutor can ask the accused a simple question to which the accused can give

a straightforward answer. That being the case, I do not see why we need to change any of the fundamental aspects of the process.
It would be entirely premature to provide a summary of evidence at judicial examination stage. The judicial examination takes place at a very early stage of the process, soon after the accused has been arrested and charged. At that stage, the prosecution will often not be in a position to give a full summary of how it intends to proceed—the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will know that from his experience as an advocate-depute. I do not believe that there would be any advantage in the accused having such a summary at that stage, and there could be no question of the Crown being limited to proceeding only on the basis of such evidence as may be available at the time of the judicial examination.
I also cannot see the advantage of amendment No. 168, which would amend clause 10 by providing an enhanced role for the accused's solicitor in the process of the judicial examination. A clear duty is placed on the sheriff by the statute to ensure that the procedure is undertaken in a manner that is fair to the accused so that he or she understands fully what is being asked. To tinker with that system by introducing a more extensive role for the legal representative of accused persons in objecting to the questions put to the accused by the prosecutor would be to alter the nature of the process unnecessarily.
In the event that it is thought that anything said by the accused in the course of a judicial examination has been extracted by unfair or improper means—despite the fact that the procedure is under the control of the sheriff—it would be open to the defence, at either a first or preliminary diet, or indeed at the trial itself, to challenge the evidential value of the judicial examination. I believe that there are perfectly adequate safeguards for the accused, and, in those circumstances, I urge that the amendments be withdrawn.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I understand the practicalities of asking the prosecution to provide all the details of the evidence upon which it intends to rely. However, the amendment is not exclusive, in the sense that the prosecution would be debarred in some way from relying on other information at another stage. It occurs to me that there may be an imbalance, in that the accused is expected to state his defence but the prosecution is not obliged to state the terms of the prosecution, other than the bald narrative of the charge no doubt contained in the petition warrant.
Therefore, the Minister should consider the fact that at that stage the accused is obliged to come clean—to put it colloquially—but, apart from the terms of the charge, the prosecution is not asked to do likewise. Looking at the matter from the point of view of fairness—which is always the ultimate test in procedures of this kind—we should ask whether it might be possible to provide the accused with something along the lines suggested by the amendment. The Minister knocked the amendment aside rather baldly, but I think that it deserves further and more detailed consideration than he felt able to give it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I will answer the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). The questions asked of


the accused will be very simple and straightforward. The amendment is difficult because it requests a summary of evidence at a time when the prosecution may not have all the evidence readily available. If it is a serious case, such as a murder case, additional information may become available later in the course of the investigation and we must remember that judicial examination takes place at a very early stage in the proceedings.
For those reasons, it is not appropriate or wise to impose a cumbersome process upon the prosecution. We must balance the interests of justice with fairness to the accused, and I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that the effects of the amendments would not be in the best interests of justice.

Mr. Campbell: I shall intrude upon your discretion and respond briefly to the Minister's comments if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister does not understand that there is no exclusivity. The amendment does not say that, having stated its case, the Crown could never go beyond the terms of that case in the future.
I do not think that the Minister has directed his attention to the fact that a person is arrested and charged with an offence only because there is at least prima facie evidence from corroborated sources as to his or her guilt. To that extent, by the time that an individual appears at the judicial review, the prosecution must know the evidence on the basis of which it has been thought fit to charge that individual.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is in the interests of justice for the simple reason that, if the prosecution puts forward its case at a very early stage and it then emerges that there is a great deal more evidence that it was unaware of and the case involves other matters as well, the defence could argue in the trial that the prosecution did not put forward the case fully and properly at the time of the judicial examination. The prosecution may not have been in a position to do that. The hon. and learned Gentleman would be imposing upon the prosecution a cumbersome and onerous process which would not be in the best interests of justice.

Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

FIRST AND PRELIMINARY DIETS IN SOLEMN PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 9, line 6, leave out '76' and insert '67'.
No. 52, in page 9, line 32, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.
No. 53, in page 10, line 17, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.
No. 54, in page 10, line 25, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 14

INTERMEDIATE DIET IN SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 10, leave out lines 29 and 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 14 provides, among other things, for intermediate diets to be mandatory in summary proceedings. The amendments ensure that the Secretary of State will have the power to introduce the new diets gradually, court by court and, if appropriate, to disapply the provisions in particular courts.
Gradual introduction will permit monitoring and evaluation of the diets to be carried out before they are introduced throughout Scotland. If it is deemed appropriate, certain courts may not be required to hold such diets if it is clear that they would be of no practical value.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 56, in page 10, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 2 on page 11.
No. 57, in page 11, line 7, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.
No. 58, in page 11, line 16, at end insert—

'(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as respects any court prescribed by the Secretary of State by order, in relation to proceedings commenced after such date as may be so prescribed, with the following modifications—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "may" there shall be substituted "shall, subject to subsection (1E) below,"; and
(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(1E) If, on a joint application by the prosecutor and the accused made at any time before the commencement of the intermediate diet, the court considers it inappropriate to have such a diet, the duty under subsection (1) above shall not apply and the court shall discharge any such diet already fixed.
(1F) The court may consider an application under subsection (1E) above without hearing the parties.".


(5) An order under subsection (4) above shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 17

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 14, line 45, leave out "other".
Clause 17 is one of four clauses introduced in Committee to implement the recommendations contained in a report by the Scottish Law Commission, "Evidence—Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings", which was published on 23 February.
The amendment arises from our further consideration of the clauses. It will permit any party to the proceedings in which a hearsay statement has been admitted to seek the leave of the court to lead additional evidence. Clause 17(9) currently restricts that right to any party other than the party leading the evidence of a hearsay statement.
I hope that the amendment will accordingly be welcomed by the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 16, line 46, after 'material' insert
'deriving from human beings or animals'.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should say that the amendment is a concession to him, as I resisted everything else he proposed, particularly on Lockerbie. The hon. Gentleman wanted a better definition of "biological". We have responded to that, as he had a valid point. We have made it beyond doubt that references to biological material do not include material of botanical origin, such as drugs, but refer only to material deriving from human beings or animals. That is the clarification that the hon. Gentleman sought, and I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32

COMMENT BY PROSECUTOR ON ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO GIVE EVIDENCE

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 26, line 4, at end insert—
'(2) The prosecutor shall only be permitted to comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence in any proceedings against him if—

(a) the accused has intimated a special defence of alibi or incrimination; or
(b) the court has upon application being made agreed that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case that the prosecutor should be entitled so to comment.'.

The amendment relates to clause 32. It concerns the right of the prosecutor to comment on the defence's failure to give evidence. As was mentioned in Committee, it is an important measure, which has drawn sharp criticism from the legal fraternity.
When I mention the legal fraternity, perhaps I should mention one of its members who advises all parties in the House. irrespective of stance—Michael Clancy of the Law Society. We value Michael's assistance greatly over the months and years. Michael has been ill recently, but he is recovering, and today he was in the Box under the Gallery watching the deliberations. Both sides of the House are grateful to Michael for the assistance that he has provided. I know that the Minister, in particular, agrees with me, but it is nice to have recorded in Hansard the assistance that he gives all parties in the House, not least on the issue of the right of the prosecution.
The Law Society, among others, feels strongly about the issue. The amendment seeks to circumscribe the occasions when the prosecutor can comment on the defence's failure to give evidence. It has been suggested in the press in Scotland by eminent legal writers that the scales of justice are being tipped in favour of the prosecution rather than the defence by the introduction of the clause. The Opposition agree with that view, and ask the Government seriously to consider the issue so that the scales of justice are finely balanced again, and are neither in favour of the prosecutor or the defence.
Without the amendment, the prosecutor will be able to comment on the accused's silence on a particular issue. That will give the prosecutor more power and leeway than the judge has at present. That cannot be in the interests of fairness and the law.
We should consider what could happen in the case of an over-zealous prosecutor. The point was drawn to the attention of the Minister before, but he gave an inadequate answer. If there is an over-zealous prosecutor, the judge could comment on that, but by commenting on it, he would be bringing to the attention of the jury the fact that the prosecutor mentioned it in the first place, so the judge would be reinforcing it. It would be in the mind of the jury throughout the trial and when it decided the verdict. That is an important point that I would like to get across to the Minister in the amendment.
There is a considerable amount of case law relating to the right of the court to comment on the accused person's silence at trial. Those cases clarify the circumstances when the judge may comment. The prosecutor should be subject to the same restrictions as the judge. The amendment would ensure simply that the prosecutor's right to comment is no wider than that of the judiciary.
In September, the Government published a consultation paper:
The right to silence, judicial examination and evidence of previous convictions".
It was a hastily produced document. One has it in mind that it was based on the position in England and Wales, and the Government sought to align the position in Scotland with that in England and Wales. I submit to the Minister that the legal system in Scotland is unique, that we do not need to copy England and Wales, and that the Government undertook a hasty measure when they produced their document last September.
Judges have been drawing attention to the accused's silence since 1918 in the case of Brown v. Macpherson, when Lord Justice General Strathclyde said:
the judge may, and in my opinion should, in exceptional cases comment upon the fact…that an accused
failed to give evidence or go into the witness box.
There are other cases since that time have developed that case law such as Scott v. Hon. Member Advocate in 1946, Stewart and others v. Hon. Member Advocate in 1980 and McLean and Canning v. Hon. Member Advocate in 1993. So the judge can comment on cases.
The law is clear that judicial comment can only be made when special defences of alibi or incrimination have been entered,, where it is clear that the accused knows certain facts unknown to anyone else or where inference of guilt can be drawn from the unanswered Crown case. If the judge is constrained by case law to comment on the failure of the accused to enter the witness box, why will not the prosecutor be similarly constrained? Why are the Government offering the prosecutor an excess not available to the judiciary? Such a constraint would help to balance the scales of justice.
The right to silence has existed more than 100 years, since the Criminal Procedure Act 1887—so why in 1995 are the Government overturning that right and tipping the balance in favour of the prosecution? The Government have no credible case, and it ill behoves them to proceed without adequate explanation. It is important to maintain public confidence in Scotland's criminal justice system,


and the Government's proposal would be a small step to reducing it. It would not serve the interests of justice, and I ask the Government to reconsider.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to the Law Society, which has been diligent in making representations to all parties, and to Michael Clancy—for whose help to right hon. and hon. Members we are most grateful. We wish him a speedy recovery.
Clause 32 removes the prohibition on the prosecutor's right to comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence on his own behalf. We have promoted that change because we believe it right that the prosecutor should be able to draw to the jury's attention, with the proper degree of care and balance, what may be an important element of the case before them. The clause gives the prosecutor the right to comment in all such situations. That follows the recommendations of the Thomson committee.
We believe that the prosecutor can be relied on to use the discretion appropriately and sparingly. To emphasise that, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has undertaken to issue guidance to procurators fiscal on the use of the right to comment. The system provides perfectly adequate safeguards against the possibility of the prosecutor going too far in his comments. The prosecutor's right to comment will be no wider than that of the judge. If the prosecutor were to go too far—I emphasise our belief that that will be very much the exception—it will be open to the judge to draw that to the attention of the jury in his charge, and to direct them accordingly.

Mr. McFall: If the prosecutor is over-zealous, it will be the judge's place to correct him—but by doing so, the judge will have brought the situation to the jury's attention on two occasions. Rather than allow such flexibility for the prosecutor, is it not necessary to issue guidelines to which prosecutors could work? Without them, there will be no adequate safeguard.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is the purpose of the guidance that my noble and learned Friend will issue to prosecutors, which will he of substantial assistance.
In cases of defences of alibi and self-defence, the judge's ability to comment is not limited to the examples quoted by the hon. Gentleman of the kinds of situation in which comment might be made. In the final analysis, it will be open to the accused to seek leave to appeal against any ensuing conviction or sentence if it is thought that the prosecutor's comments might have led to a miscarriage of justice. Neither limiting the right to comment to situations where special defences have been intimated nor requiring the court to take a decision in advance of the prosecutor commenting on the failure to give evidence is a sensible way to proceed.
Even if there were some merit in that approach, I am unclear why it should be thought appropriate to list only the special defences of alibi and incrimination in this amendment, and exclude the other special defences, including that of self-defence. Seeking to introduce the

unusual and imperfect procedures in the amendments would not add anything to the safeguards already available to the accused. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On Second Reading, I said that I did not share misgivings that a prosecutor might be entitled to comment on the absence of the giving of evidence by an accused person. From my own experience of prosecuting and defending, if that is not done expressly, there is often an opportunity for the prosecutor to comment at least by implication.
I was not as persuaded as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) of the need to be anxious about the Bill's proposal. However, that reflects a substantial and radical innovation that is contrary to previous procedure, which may have consequences for the freedom of the subject. In those circumstances, there is a duty to be certain that innovation will be properly restricted.
My anxiety about the Minister's response is illustrated by an expression coined by Mr. Melvin Belli, a famous United States attorney—or trial lawyer, to use the vernacular. He said, "If you let a skunk into the jury room, you should not be surprised if it creates a smell." That is a colourful way of saying that, if evidence or comments are produced before a jury, one can hardly be surprised if the jury takes account of them—no matter how strict the instructions given by the trial judge to disregard them.
Although the Minister may have a point in respect of certain technicalities, the principle behind the amendment is of ensuring that an innovation that may have consequences for the freedom of the subject should be regulated by Parliament rather than by the direction or instruction of the Lord Advocate, however well-motivated and conceived to be in the public interest. That is a sound and substantial principle, and I hope that the Minister will give it further consideration and not reject it on technical grounds. That fundamental issue ought to be properly considered.

Mr. McFall: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who mentioned an expression coined by an American lawyer. I used the same analogy in Committee, but credited it to Lionel Daiches, QC. Perhaps it has done the rounds. The point is that the Government's proposal gives the prosecutor another bite at the cherry.
We know about miscarriages of justice, the controversy surrounding Parliament's intentions, and the recent debate in Scottish courts. Parliament should make its voice clear in the Bill. In another place, Lord Hutchinson—an eminent lawyer—referred to the Home Secretary's implied abolition of the right to silence as an act of vandalism:
To make a comment of that kind is to ask the jury to give the silence some evidential value; that is, to add to the prosecution case. That is why both Royal Commissions in England pointed out that that was mischief … The whole basis of criminal law, both in Scotland and in England, is that no defendant should ever be put in that position."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 414.]


Those eloquent words go to the heart of the issue and of the amendment. We believe that they should be enshrined in the Bill.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall respond briefly. I met Melvin Belli at a Canadian university. He said that he would speak only if he were provided with moose and pemmican. He was indeed a colourful figure.
I think that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is somewhat over-concerned. At least one judge in another place has expressed support for the change that we propose. He agreed with the Government that it was a sensible move. It seemed anomalous that no comment by the prosecution was allowed when virtually every other party to the proceedings was not so inhibited. I believe that, when the judge was practising at the Bar, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) sometimes appeared as his junior.
We believe strongly that the recommendation of the Thomson committee, which has been the subject of consultation, should be enacted. I have no doubt that its implementation and operation will be reviewed in due course. The Lord Advocate's guidelines will spell out the sort of comment that may be made and the circumstances in which it would be appropriate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the guidelines be published?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall make inquiries. It is better that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be given the correct answer within a few hours rather than an immediate response, which may or may not be correct.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for that response. If he makes inquiries, will he write to us?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Most certainly.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 246.

Division No. 161]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, D N


Austin-Walker, John
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Chidgey, David


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Clapham, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Coffey, Ann


Berry, Roger
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Connarty, Michael


Blunkett, David
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Paul
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Roseanna


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Darling, Alistair


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davidson, Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)





Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Denham, John
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Maddock, Diana


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dowd, Jim
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Enright, Derek
Michael, Alun


Etherington, Bill
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Milburn, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gapes, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Golding, Mrs Lin
O'Hara, Edward


Gordon, Mildred
Olner, Bill


Graham, Thomas
O'Neill, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pickthall, Colin


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L


Gunnell, John
Pope, Greg


Hall, Mike
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hanson, David
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Harvey, Nick
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Heppell, John
Purchase, Ken


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hodge, Margaret
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Raynsford, Nick


Hoon, Geoffrey
Reid, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Rendel, David


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowlands, Ted


Hutton, John
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Simpson, Alan


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Skinner, Dennis


Jackson, Helen (Shef' Id, H)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jamieson, David
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spearing, Nigel


Jowell, Tessa
Spellar, John


Khabra, Piara S
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kirkwood, Archy
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Stevenson, George


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Livingstone, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAllion, John
Timms, Stephen


McAvoy, Thomas
Touhig, Don


McCartney, Ian
Turner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Tyler, Paul


McFall,John
Wallace, James


McKelvey, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McLeish, Henry
Watson, Mike


Maclennan, Robert
Welsh, Andrew


McMaster, Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm






Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. John Cummings and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Evennett, David


Alexander, Richard
Faber, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gale, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bates, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Batiste, Spencer
Gill, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Sir Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan





Legg, Barry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, Sir David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Waterson, Nigel


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Whittingdale, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Noes:


Sackville, Tom
Dr. Liam Fox and


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 35

SUPERVISED ATTENDANCE ORDERS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 27, line 3, after second 'than' insert—

'(i) where the amount of the fine, part or instalment which the offender has failed to pay does not exceed level 1 on the standard scale, 50 hours; and
(ii) in any other case,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 110, 111, 61 and 112.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments introduce procedural changes to clause 35.
Amendment No. 112 introduces a right to appeal against the imposition and length of a supervised attendance order where such an order has been made as a disposal at first instance in respect of an offender aged 16 or 17.
Amendment No. 61 will make it clear that the Secretary of State can notify courts that schemes are available only for limited classes of cases.
I undertook to consider an amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in Committee. We have further considered the position. We agree that, where an offender who is already in prison or detained for other matters falls to be dealt with by the court for fine default, the imposition of a supervised attendance order for default may not be the best option. Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 give the court discretion in such circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 110, in page 27, line 13, at end insert
'and is not serving a sentence of imprisonment'.
No. 111, in page 27, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (6), the following definition shall be inserted in the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
imprisonment" includes detention;".'.
No. 61, in page 27, line 33, at end insert—
'( ) in paragraph 1(1)(a), after the word "persons" there shall be inserted "of a class which includes the offender";'.
No. 112, in page 29, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of any appeal or review, a supervised attendance order made under this section is a sentence.'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 42

LEAVE TO APPEAL

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 33, line 14, at end insert—
'(1 A) In section 228(1) of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted at the end "or any allegation that the conviction was otherwise unsafe.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 171, in page 33, line 31, at end insert—
'Provided that, in the case of an allegation under subsection 228(2) above of any miscarriage of justice in the proceedings in which the person was convicted or any miscarriage of justice on the basis of the existence and significance of additional evidence which was not heard at the trial and which was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial, the judge shall grant leave to appeal.'.

Mr. McFall: Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 are concerned with convictions that are considered to be unsafe.
Amendment No. 171 is also concerned with evidence on any issue where it is considered that there was a miscarriage of justice on the basis of the existence and significance of additional evidence that was not heard at

the trial and was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial. In that case, the judge, in our submission, shall grant leave to appeal.
We have seen that situation in Scotland over the past six months or so, where there has been an unprecedented split between one division of the Court of Criminal Appeal, chaired by Lord Hope, and the other division, presided over by Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk. That dispute centred on cases in which someone who had been convicted claimed that since his trial credible and reliable new evidence had emerged which cast serious doubt on his guilt. The legislation allows the Appeal Court to hear additional evidence only if that evidence was not available at the trial and could not reasonably have been made available.
Several months ago, Lord Hope, supported by Lords Allanbridge and Brand, decided to allow an appeal in a case despite the fact that the additional evidence was available at the trial. However, that decision was tested by five other Law Lords, including Lords Ross, McCluskey, Morrison, the late Lord Morton and Lord Cowie. They stated that the law was clear and that the other three judges had gone against their own previous decisions in the way in which they had reinterpreted it.
7 pm
The reason for that reinterpretation by Scotland's most senior judge was that he wished to be flexible regarding appeals and the law. That is not to say that other judges did not wish to be flexible. They felt that Parliament had set down the parameters within which they had to operate. However, I think that Lord Hope was considering the situation regarding the environment in which the law operates and wished to place a liberal interpretation on that. I, and I think many others, would agree with him regarding his intentions in that respect.
There is a real and growing disquiet about the Scottish Appeal Court's ability or willingness to consider possible miscarriages of justice. Lawyers and the public are becoming more and more aware of how difficult it is to have any case re-examined in Scotland. I think that it was with that in mind that Lord Hope decided, in his opinion and in that of the other judges, to interpret the law in a more liberal way.
The situation in Scotland is not different from that in England and Wales. It is a myth that the miscarriages of justice discovered in the past few years in England and Wales are unlikely to happen in Scotland because of what is perceived as a superior legal system. The truth is that, in Scotland, we are less likely to face up to the possibility that they may exist.
At present in Scottish gaols, a number of prisoners are robustly proclaiming their innocence. A number of such cases have been taken up by their Members of Parliament. For example, the case of George Beattie has been taken up by his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). In addition, there are the cases of Raymond Gilmour from Paisley and the ice cream war prisoners, Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steel—the latter having gone to extraordinary lengths, gluing himself to the fence at Buckingham palace, to proclaim his innocence, and the former, having been on hunger strike, declared, on his return to prison from hospital, that he might go on hunger strike again. The cases of Peter Hurtt and Alex Hall are two further examples.
There is a real danger in this situation. Pressure is building up and fuelling the argument for easier referral in cases where there is an alleged miscarriage of justice, notwithstanding the fact that we wish a new body to consider the situation. It is noticeable that the noble Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk, who ruled against Lord Hope's liberal interpretation of the law, himself in a speech just two years ago, said that there had to be a body to deal with miscarriages of justice in the criminal law system.
The situation is crying out for some change. Even in tonight's debate, we could go some way towards reassuring the legal fraternity and the judges in Scotland about Parliament's intentions. When the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, and clause 32 in particular, was being debated—now section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975—there was no perception that future generations would be able to bring Hansard to their aid. But the decision in the other place in Pepper v. Hart—in November 1992, if I remember correctly—has ensured that Hansard will be of great assistance. It is precisely with regard to areas of ambiguity where the intentions of Parliament need to be ascertained that the deliberations in Parliament can be used by those outside to interpret the will of Parliament.
The intention of Parliament with regard to appeals is not very clear. My evidence for that is the Hansard report of 5 June 1980 of the Standing Committee's proceedings on clause 32 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. That has now become section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. Only eight minutes was allowed in Committee to debate the 17 pages of the appeal procedure. Parliament cannot do adequate justice to such a volume of work in eight minutes. We should be concerned that, with the eight minutes that we spent in 1980 and perhaps eight minutes tonight, we shall have spent only a quarter of an hour on the issue of appeals, yet it is one that is tearing the heart out of the Scottish legal system, with the top judges almost at each other's throats.
Given the judgment in Pepper v. Hart, Parliament's intentions can be made clear tonight. Tonight's debate could have a crucial and immediate effect on the development of law in Scotland. We owe it to the legal system to give the matter more than the eight minutes given to it in 1980. The Minister could bring clarity to the policy decision for a liberal interpretation which Lord Hope and other judges are seeking to develop.
If we had what was considered to be an unsafe conviction and Lord Hope's liberal interpretation was applied and upheld, the case of Elliott, with which the Minister is familiar, would not have overturned the decision in the case of Church. We could do the legal system in Scotland a favour tonight by our deliberations.
The Government set up the Sutherland committee to consider the issue of miscarriages of justice and to establish a body to consider them. One of the criteria that it considered was whether the Appeal Court should be able to hear additional evidence that was available at the time of the trial provided that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence. If I am correct in my interpretation, the dispute between Lord Hope and his fellow judges centres on the interpretation of the word "reasonable".
I favour the view that the Appeal Court should be able to hear additional evidence that was available at the time of the trial, provided that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it. The current statutory provisions in respect of additional evidence are contained in section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, under which a person may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice in the proceedings in which he was convicted, including any alleged miscarriage of justice, on the basis of the existence and significance of additional evidence that was not heard at the trial and was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial.
Other important statutory provisions in respect of additional evidence are sections 252 and 253 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. In particular, section 252(c) states:
Without prejudice to any existing power of the High Court that court may for the purposes of an appeal under section 228(1) … (c) take account of any circumstances relevant to the case which were not before the trial judge.
A number of observations could be made about section 228(2), but, for the purposes of this debate, it is appropriate to concentrate on the words in the statute that relate to the non-availability limit on the introduction of fresh evidence. The cases of Church v. Her Majesty's Advocate 1995—to which I referred earlier—and Elliott v. Her Majesty's Advocate 1995 are relevant. In the Elliott case, the court considered that the provisions of section 228(2) regarding additional evidence constituted a requirement that must be satisfied before the court could hear additional evidence.
Whereas section 228(2) allows a review of any alleged miscarriage of justice when that alleged miscarriage of justice relates to the non-production of additional evidence, the court is constrained by the terms of the statute to hear that evidence only if it was not heard at the trial, was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial.
In earlier debates, the Minister has referred to the Thomson committee. In its first report in August 1971, it expressed the view that additional evidence could be presented on the basis of a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial. The current provision in section 228(2), which derives from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, was considered by the court in the Elliott case. The Lord Justice-Clerk considers that, because Parliament did not adopt the reasonable explanation test suggested by the Thomson committee and instead provided the wording currently contained in the statute, it is clear that Parliament intended this more exacting test. The decision in that case reaffirmed the law as it stood prior to the Church case.
Given that in 1980 we debated such a volume of material for only eight minutes, I wonder what Parliament's intention was. I think that many people outside will wonder the same, and it is important for the Minister to comment tonight. Concern has been expressed in a number of quarters that the High Court's interpretation of the additional evidence test does not meet the demands of justice.
The interpretation of the non-availability limit and the introduction of fresh evidence are clearly an issue. In paragraphs 6.29 and 6.30 of his book "Criminal Appeals", Lord McCluskey suggests that non-availability raises a


simple question of fact: either it was available or it was not but one must also ask: 'available to whom?
Lord McCluskey concludes that availability must be considered from the standpoint of the appellant, full account being taken of what was practicable for him at the trial. He also states that the word "reasonable" is
notoriously elastic and it remains to be seen how severely the High Court will apply this test if the applicant was in fact ignorant of the existence or potential of the additional evidence but could have learned of it by harder work or better detection work he or his advisers might have discovered it".
In all the circumstances, we support the view taken in the Church case, that a reasonable explanation for the failure to produce evidence based on a liberal interpretation of section 228(2) shows the route to reform. It is clear that the policy objective pursued by the Lord Justice-General is, in that case, correct, and that the proper test for dealing with the problem raised in the Church case would be along the lines of an excusable failure to produce the evidence at the original trial. That having been said, I acknowledge that the decision in the Elliott case to the effect that the Church case was wrongly decided is—in terms of the proper construction of the 1975 Act—correct.
I have considered the test proposed, under the Criminal Appeal Bill, that the terms of section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 should be amended to provide that the evidence should be admissible and capable of belief. I approve of the change, and I think that many members of the Scottish legal fraternity consider that a similar provision should be enacted for Scotland.
Given the Pepper v. Hart decision in the House of Lords, I stand by the comments that I made in The Scotsman on 25 March 1995. I said then:
The fact that the law is so rigid means that justice is not being done fairly".
That justice is not being done fairly is recognised not only by those who have recourse to the courts but by those who preside over them. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide a clarity that could assist the Law Lords when they examine cases such as this in the future.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that, in the Elliott case, a five-judge bench of the High Court overruled the recent judgment in Church v.Her Majesty's Advocate. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, the judgment concerned section 228(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
The Elliott judgment confirmed that a person might bring an appeal on the basis of fresh evidence only if that evidence was not available and could not reasonably have been made available at the trial. The effect of the judgment is that the law has been declared to be as it was thought to be before the Church judgment.
The question on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated—the question whether there is any need to change section 228(2) —is now being considered by the committee on appeals criteria and miscarriages of justice procedures, chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland. We shall decide whether proposals for legislative action should be presented once that committee has reported.
Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 appear to be founded on a belief that the new leave to appeal arrangements will increase the likelihood that miscarriages of justice will go

uncorrected. I cannot accept that proposition. The leave to appeal arrangements contained in clause 42 will filter out—at an early stage—only frivolous and unmeritorious appeals that would otherwise waste the time of the Appeal Court. The new arrangements should therefore allow the court more time in which to consider meritorious appeals when a miscarriage of justice may genuinely have occurred.
Amendment No. 170 deals with the question of appeals criteria in general, and appears to seek to modify the criteria currently applied by the Appeal Court in Scotland. The Scottish Office takes the matter very seriously. We consulted on possible changes to the criteria applied by the Appeal Court in the consultation paper "Sentencing and Appeals", but no clear consensus emerged.

Mr. McFall: What does the Minister consider to be a definition of "reasonable"? That one word is causing a fracture between Lord Hope and other Lords in the Scottish court. Could we not assist the process this evening by providing an opinion—and, one hopes, siding with Lord Hope, the most senior judge in Scotland, who believes that a more liberal interpretation of the law is required?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said in my opening remarks, Lord Hope's judgment has been clarified by a five-judge bench of the High Court which overruled the judgment in Church v. Her Majesty's Advocate. That decision is the one that will apply.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided to set up a representative body—

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his indulgence in giving way to me again. He says that the position has been clarified, but if he looks at the judgment of those five judges he will note that, according to them, Parliament's intentions were clear. On 5 June 1980, Parliament devoted only eight minutes to the 17 pages involved. Its intentions were far from clear—and clarity from Parliament is cried out for. That is the main issue.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, this is a matter on which the courts must interpret the Act as it now stands and they have done that in the five-judge bench of the High Court. As to whether any amendments are necessary, this particular subject is under consideration by the Sutherland committee and we will consider very carefully indeed any representations that they make to us.
Sir Stewart Sutherland is the principal of Edinburgh university, and he is looking at these issues in considerable depth. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Dumbarton should seek to pre-empt the committee's work. The amendment has not been drafted in the light of the careful consultation which is necessary and which the committee is bringing to the complex issues involved.
We have already given an undertaking to respond to the Sutherland committee's recommendations as quickly as practicable, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for those comments, but there are two issues. First, there is the dispute between Lord Hope, Lord Ross and others. Clarity is required on that.
The second issue is the Sutherland committee. The Minister takes refuge in the fact that the Sutherland committee has been established and will report in the summer of 1996. Meanwhile, the Criminal Appeal Bill is going through the House. There will be a miscarriage of justice body for England and Wales but nothing for Scotland.
The fact that the Sutherland committee reports in 1996 will probably ensure that nothing will be done for Scotland this side of a general election. I and many others in Scotland do not think that the present situation should prevail beyond the next general election. We are looking to the Government to speed things up. It was quite absurd to use the time scale of summer 1996 in the first place. It could have been done much more speedily.
Given that the committee will report in summer 1996, what guarantees can the Minister give that the Government will be up and running immediately to deal with the situation? The miscarriages, and alleged miscarriages, of justice in Scotland at the moment are a running sore. The Government have to attend to that matter. It is no use having recourse to the Sutherland committee when its report date is as far away as 1996. Something more urgent needs to be done now. It is with that in mind that we have tabled the amendments.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that the Sutherland committee will report before or by July 1996. The chairman has said that it will report as soon as possible and that those matters will, of course, be dealt with urgently.
The definition of "reasonable" is very much a matter for interpretation by the courts, as it has been over the past century. It is not for us to speculate on what might have been the parliamentary intention earlier, when the particular provision was passed.

Mr. McFall: I thank Minister for that reply. He is really saying that we do not know what Parliament had in mind in 1980, but it is certainly none of our business in 1995 to decide what Parliament had in mind in 1980. Frankly, that is a most inadequate answer, and something needs to be done.
That one word "reasonable" is causing the problem. Something needs to be done about it. If the Sutherland committee reports by July 1996, will the Minister give a commitment that the recommendations will be implemented as soon as possible thereafter, by October 1996, in the new parliamentary Session?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will act as soon as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State takes these matters very seriously, as he does all issues involving justice where it is alleged that the person convicted has not committed the crime and fresh evidence has allegedly been made available.
Amendment negatived.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 34, line 24, at end insert—

'(6A) Comments in writing made under subsection (1)(a) or (5)(a) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that provision, specify the arguable grounds of appeal (whether or not they are contained in the note of appeal) on the basis of which leave to appeal is granted.

(6B) Where the arguable grounds of appeal are specified by virtue of subsection (6A) above it shall not, except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, be competent for the appellant to found any aspect of his appeal on any ground of appeal contained in the note of appeal but not so specified.
(6C) Any application by the appellant for the leave of the High Court under subsection (6B) above—

(a) shall be made not less than seven days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and
(b) shall, not less than seven days before that date, be intimated by the appellant to the Crown Agent.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 2, 62, 4 and 63.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 42 introduces a new requirement for leave to appeal. When these provisions were debated in another place, it was noted that where leave to appeal was granted, the appellant would be allowed to advance all grounds of appeal contained in the note of appeal even if the single judge had considered certain grounds to be frivolous and unarguable.
The amendments also ensure that where the single judge or the High Court identifies the arguable grounds for appeal not contained in the note of appeal it shall be competent for the appellant to found aspects of the appeal on those grounds of appeal without requiring further leave from the High Court. This matter was also debated in another place. I am pleased to be able to clarify the arrangements.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 2, in page 34, line 29, at end insert—
'( ) After subsection (3) of section 233 of that Act (restriction on arguing ground not in note of appeal) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any ground of appeal specified as an arguable ground of appeal by virtue of subsection (6A) of section 230A of this Act.".'.
No. 62, in page 35, line 36, at end insert—

'(6A) Comments in writing made under subsection (1)(a) or (5)(a) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that provision, specify the arguable grounds of appeal (whether or not they are contained in the stated case) on the basis of which leave to appeal is granted.
(6B) Where the arguable grounds of appeal are specified by virtue of subsection (6A) above it shall not, except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, be competent for the appellant to found any aspect of his appeal on any ground of appeal contained in the stated case but not so specified.
(6C) Any application by the appellant for the leave of the High Court under subsection (6B) above—

(a) shall be made not less than seven days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and
(b) shall, not less than seven days before that date, be intimated by the appellant to the Crown Agent.'.


No. 4, in page 35, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) After subsection (3) of section 452 of that Act (restriction on arguing ground not in stated case) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any ground of appeal specified as an arguable ground of appeal by virtue of subsection (6A) of section 442ZA of this Act.".'.


No. 63, in page 36, line 35, at end insert—

'(5A) Comments in writing made under subsection (1)(a) or (4)(a) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that provision, specify the arguable grounds of appeal (whether or not they are contained in the note of appeal) on the basis of which leave to appeal is granted.
(5B) Where the arguable grounds of appeal are specified by virtue of subsection (5A) above it shall not, except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, be competent for the appellant to found any aspect of his appeal on any ground of appeal contained in the note of appeal but not so specified.
(5C) Any application by the appellant for the leave of the High Court under subsection (5B) above—

(a) shall be made not less than seven days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and
(b) shall, not less than seven days before that date, be intimated by the appellant to the Crown Agent.'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 46

NEW PROSECUTION FOR SAME OR SIMILAR OFFENCE

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 38, line 19, leave out 'and'.
No. 114, in page 38, line 32, at end insert '; and
(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(5) On granting authority under section 254(1)(c) of this Act to bring a new prosecution, the High Court shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, order the detention of the accused person in custody or admit him to bail.
(6) Subsections (2)(b) and (4) to (6) of section 101 of this Act (prevention of delay in trials) shall apply to an accused person who is detained under subsection (5) above as they apply to an accused person detained by virtue of being committed until liberated in due course of law.".'.

No. 115, in page 38, line 36, leave out 'and'.
No. 116, in page 39, line 2, at end insert '; and
(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(5) On granting authority under section 452A(1)(d) of this Act to bring a new prosecution, the High Court may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, order the detention of the accused person in custody; but an accused person may not be detained by virtue of this subsection for a period of more than 40 days.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 49

EXAMINATION OF FACTS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 41, line 34, leave out
'made under subsection (8) below'.
No. 7, in page 42,, leave out lines 1 to 3.
No. 8, in page 43, line 22, leave out
'made under subsection (8) below'.
No. 9, in page 43,, leave out lines 38 to 40.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 51

APPEAL BY ACCUSED IN CASE INVOLVING INSANITY

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 46, line 23, at end insert 'and'.
No. 11, in page 46, line 46, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 48.
No. 12, in page 47, line 33, at end insert 'and'.
No. 13, in page 48, line 7, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 9.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 52

APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR IN CASE INVOLVING INSANITY

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 49, line 1, at end insert 'and'.
No. 15, in page 49, line 13, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 15.
No. 16, in page 50, line 1, at end insert 'and'.
No. 17, in page 50, line 13, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 15.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 55

COMMITTAL TO HOSPITAL FOR INQUIRY INTO MENTAL CONDITION

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 51, line 31, leave out 'health' and insert 'condition'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 60

JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURT IN RELATION TO STATUTORY OFFENCES

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 56, line 43, leave out from 'offence' to 'a' in line 46 and insert—

'(a) to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period exceeding 60 days;
(b) to impose'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 66 and 88.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The first two of these amendments make it clear that the amount of caution that the district courts may fix in respect of a statutory offence is the same as that applicable to common law offences by virtue of section 284 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
The second amendment puts beyond doubt that a court in solemn proceedings may order an offender, on conviction, to find caution for good behaviour.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 66, in page 56, line 47, at end insert '; or
(c) to ordain an accused person to find caution for any period exceeding six months or to an amount exceeding level 4 on the standard scale."!.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 65

LEGAL AID IN CRIMINAL APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 58, line 18, leave out 'as follows' and insert
'in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) below'.
No. 68, in page 59, line 19, at end insert—
'(6) In section 30(3) of that Act (application of section 25 of that Act to legal aid in contempt proceedings)—



(a) before the words "Section 25" there shall be inserted "Subsections (2) (a) and (c), (2A) to (4) and (6) of';
(b) for the words "it applies" there shall be substituted "they apply";
(c) after the word "sentence" there shall be inserted ", other disposal";
(d) after the word "application" there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(za) in subsection (2A) of that section, the reference to the High Court shall include a reference to the Court of Session;"; and
(e) in paragraph (b), for the word "(5)" there shall be substituted "(6)".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 70

GENERAL PROVISION

Amendment made: No. 146, in page 61, line 22, leave out
'in respect of which it is made'
and insert—

'(i) from the commission of the offence; or
(ii) where section 71(3A) of this Act applies, from the commission of the offence and any other offence to which this Chapter applies'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 71

BENEFIT FROM COMMISSION OF OFFENCE

Amendments made: No. 147, in page 61, line 36, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
No. 148, in page 61, line 37, leave out 'of the benefit' and insert
'referred to in section 70(5)(a)(i) of this Act'.
No. 149, in page 62, line 3, leave out from 'period' to end of line 6 and insert—

'(3A) Where—

(a) the application for the confiscation order has been made in respect of two or more offences; or
(b) during the relevant period the accused has been convicted of at least one other offence to which this Chapter applies, being an offence committed after the coming into force of this Chapter,

the court may, in determining the amount referred to in section 70(5)(a)(ii) of this Act, make the assumptions set out in subsection (3B) below, except in so far as the accused proves either of those assumptions, on the balance of probabilities, to be incorrect.
(3B) Those assumptions are—

(a) that any property or economic advantage which has been obtained by the accused during the relevant period has been obtained in connection with the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies; and
(b) that any expenditure by him during the relevant period was met out of property or other economic advantage obtained in connection with the commission of such an offence.

(3C) In subsections (3A) and (3B) above, "the relevant period" means the period of six years ending with the date on which proceedings were instituted against the accused for the offence in respect of which the application for the confiscation order has been made.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 73

GIFFS

Amendments made: No. 150, in page 63, line 6, after 'if' insert '—(a)' 
No. 151, in page 63, line 10, at end insert '; or

(b) where subsection (3A) of section 71 of this Act applies, it was made by the accused within the relevant period within the meaning of subsection (3C) of that section.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 74

MAKING OF CONFISCATION ORDERS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 64, leave out lines 32 and 33.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 153, 155 and 160 to 162.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The provisions that these amendments would adjust prevent the court from making a suspended forfeiture order or other forfeiture order until it has determined the amount payable. We do not consider that the court should be so fettered because that could take months. The court should be able to forfeit property immediately after conviction where this is considered appropriate.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 153, in page 64, leave out lines 39 and 40.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 75

STATEMENTS RELEVANT TO MAKING CONFISCATION ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 65, line 14, leave out
'from the commission of the offence'
and insert
'for the purposes of section 70(5)(a) of this Act.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 76

POSTPONED CONFISCATION ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 155, in page 66, line 20, leave out from 'him;' to end of line 22.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 77

INCREASE IN BENEFIT OR REALISABLE. PROPERTY

Amendments made: No. 156, in page 67, line 23, leave out
'obtained in connection with the commission of the offence'
and insert
'for the purposes of section 70(5)(a) of this Act'.
No. 157, in page 67, line 34, leave out
'in connection with the commission of the offence'.
No. 158, in page 68, line 16, after '71(2)' insert 'and (3B)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 79

CONFISCATION ORDERS WHERE PROCEEDS OF CRIME DISCOVERED AT LATER DATE

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 69, line 22, leave out 'Section 74' and insert
'Sections 70(3) and 74(1), (2) and (4)'.
No. 159, in page 69, line 35, after '71(2)' insert 'and (3B)'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 80

APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO FINES TO ENFORCEMENT OF CONFISCATION ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 70, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) Where a court, by virtue of subsection (1) above, orders the sum due under a confiscation order to be recovered by civil diligence under section 411 of the 1975 Act, any arrestment executed by a prosecutor under subsection (2) of section 96 of this Act shall be deemed to have been executed by the court as if that subsection authorised such execution.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 82

EXERCISE OF POWERS BY COURT OR ADMINISTRATOR

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 71, line 23, leave out from 'of to end of line 25 and insert
'and paragraphs 1, 4 and 12 of Schedule 3 to this Act in relation to confiscation orders and on an administrator by that Schedule.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 83

COMPENSATION

Amendment made: No. 119, in page 72, line 26, leave out '92' and insert '91, 92, 94'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 101

ARRESTMENT OF SCOTTISH PROPERTY AFFECTED BY ORDER REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 98

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 88, line 11, leave out 'prosecutor, the court' and insert
'Lord Advocate, the Court of Session'.
No. 70, in page 88, line 17, leave out 'prosecutor' and insert 'Lord Advocate'.
No. 71, in page 88, line 27, leave out
'prosecutor shall apply to the court'
and insert
'Lord Advocate shall apply to the Court of Session'.
No. 72, in page 88, leave out lines 36 to 40.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 4

SEQUESTRATION ETC. OF PERSONS HOLDING REALISABLE OR FORFEITABLE PROPERTY

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 111, line 6, leave out '94' and insert '96'.
No. 121, in page 112, line 11, leave out '94' and insert '96'.
No. 122, in page 113, line 17, leave out '94' and insert '96'.
No. 19, in page 113, line 34, leave out
'section 1 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
and insert
'section 2 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
No. 123, in page 114, line 29, leave out '94' and
insert '96 and 98 to 101'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 5

AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1987 RELATING TO PART II

Amendments made: No. 124, in page 116, line 30, leave out 'a probation order or'.
No. 160, in page 116, leave out lines 36 to 38.
No. 161, in page 116, leave out lines 44 to 46.
No. 162, in page 117, line 25, leave out from 'him' to end of line 27.
No. 125, in page 118, line 33, after '(6)' insert
'Without prejudice to section 2(1) of this Act,'.
No. 126, in page 118, line 35, leave out from 'the' to the end of line 47 and insert—
'accused, or
(b) the basis of the non-acceptance by the accused of any such allegation is challenged by the prosecutor,
the court shall consider the matters being challenged at a hearing.
(7) Where the judge presiding at a hearing held under subsection (6) above is not the trial judge he may, on the application of either party, if he considers that it would be in the interests of justice to do so, adjourn the hearing to a date when the trial judge is available.".'.
No. 127, in page 122, line 30, leave out '6A' and insert '2'.
No. 20, in page 123, line 49, at end insert—
'(c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) Where a court, by virtue of subsection (1) above, orders the sum due under a confiscation order to be recovered by civil diligence under section 411 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, any arrestment executed by a prosecutor under subsection (2) of section 11A of this Act shall be deemed to have been executed by the court as if that subsection authorised such execution.".'.
No. 128, in page 124, line 11, after 'person's' insert 'interest in his'.
No. 129, in page 126, line 42, leave out 'paragraph (b) and'.
No. 130, in page 126, line 43, at end insert—
(' ) in subsection (2), for the words "(1)(a)" there shall be substituted "(1)";'.
No. 131, in page 127, line 21, after 'effect;' insert—
'( ) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(2) Subsections (2)(a) and (7)(a) of Section 8 of this Act shall apply in relation to an interdict under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a restraint order; and subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) of section 9 thereof shall apply in relation to subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to subsection (1) of the said section 9.".'.
No. 21, in page 128, line 14, at end insert—
'. In section 19 (effect of appointment under section 13 of that Act on diligence) for the words "section 11" there shall be substituted "sections 11 and 11A".'.
No. 22, in page 128, line 24, after '11' insert ',11A'.
No. 132, in page 128, line 25, leave out from 'words' to first 'of' in line 26 and insert
'from ", so far as" to the end there shall be substituted "be exercised with a view to realising no more than the value".'.
No. 73, in page 128, line 31, leave out from 'words' to the end of line 32 and insert
'from "and" to "11(6)" there shall be substituted "28, 28A and 28B".'.
No. 133, in page 129, line 17, leave out '(except subsection (8) thereof)'.
No. 23, in page 129, leave out line 45 and insert—
'(ii) for the word "11" there shall be substituted "9, 11, 11A".'.
No. 134, in page 130, line 5, leave out
'a gift caught by Part I of this Act'
and insert
'an implicative gift'.
No. 24, in page 130, line 46, leave out
'section 8, 11 or 12 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
and insert
'section 26, 29 or 30 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
No. 25, in page 131, line 9, leave out
'section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
and insert
'section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
No. 74, in page 131, line 11, leave out 'prosecutor, the court' and insert
'Lord Advocate, the Court of Session'.
No. 75, in page 131, line 19, leave out 'prosecutor' and insert 'Lord Advocate'.
No. 26, in page 131, line 24, leave out
'section 8, 11 or 12 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
and insert
'section 26, 29 or 30 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
No. 76, in page 131, line 30, leave out
'prosecutor shall apply to the court'
and insert
'Lord Advocate shall apply to the Court of Session'.
No. 27, in page 131, line 38, leave out
'section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986'
and insert
'section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
No. 77, in page 131, leave out lines 40 to 46.
No. 135, in page 132, line 1, leave out from first 'section' to for' in line 2 and insert
'32 (Orders in Council as regards taking action in designated country)—
(a) in subsection (2)'.
No. 136, in page 132, line 3, at end insert '; and
(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3) An Order in Council under this section may amend or apply, with or without modifications, any enactment.".'.
No. 78, in page 132, line 19, leave out 'and 28A' and insert 28A and 28B'.
No. 79, in page 132, line 36, leave out 'and 28A' and insert 28A and 28B'.
No. 80, in page 132, line 51, leave out 'and 28A' and insert ', 28A and 28B'.
No. 81, in page 133, line 32, leave out 'and 28A' and insert 28A and 28B'.
No. 30, in page 133, line 45, at end insert—
In section 44(1) (offences relating to controlled drugs: fines), for the words "the proviso to subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (3)(a)".'.
No. 137, in page 133, line 45, at end insert—
'. In section 41(2) (disclosure of information held by government departments)—


(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "paragraph (a) thereof' there shall be substituted "subsection (3) of that section";
(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "paragraph (b) of subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (4)"; and
(c) the words from the end of paragraph (b) to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 6

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 134, line 19, leave out
'Schedules A (forms of indictment),'
and insert
'Section 3 of and Schedules'.
No. 31, in page 134, line 27, leave out from beginning to '3' and insert
'Parts I and III to VI of Schedule 2 (forms of procedure) and Schedule'.
No. 32, in page 134, line 28, at end insert—
'The Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 (c.45)
. In section 8(1)(b) of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 (rules of court), for the words "457(a)" there shall be substituted "457ZA".'.
No. 33, in page 135, line 1, leave out paragraph 7.
No. 83, in page 135, line 14, at end insert—
'. In section 19(1)(a) (intimation to a solicitor), for the words from "of' to the end there shall be substituted—

"(i) of the place where the person is being detained;
(ii) whether the person is to be liberated; and
(iii) if the person is not to be liberated, the date on which he is to be taken to court and the court to which he is to be taken;".'.

No. 84, in page 135, line 23, at end insert—
'. In each of sections 23 and 329 (remand and committal of persons under 21) —

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), for the words from "commit" to the end there shall be substituted ", instead of committing him to prison, commit him to the local authority in whose area the court is situated to be detained—

(i) where the court so requires, in secure accommodation within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and
(ii) in any other case, in a suitable place of safety chosen by the authority;"; and

(b) in subsection (4), for the words from "and" in the second place where it occurs to the end there shall be substituted "to be detained—

(a) where the court so requires, in secure accommodation within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and
(b) in any other case, in a suitable place of safety chosen by the authority.".'.



No. 85, in page 135, line 29, at end insert—
'. In section 31 (appeal in respect of bail), after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(4A) Where an applicant in an appeal under this section is under 21 years of age, section 23 of this Act shall apply to the High Court or, as the case may be, the Lord Commissioner of Justiciary when disposing of the appeal as it applies to a court when remanding or committing a person of the applicant's age for trial or sentence.".'.
No. 34, in page 135, line 35, leave out paragraph 15.
No. 86, in page 136, line 23, at end insert—
'. After section 48 there shall be inserted the following section—


"Common law and statutory offences in same indictment
48A. It shall be competent to include in one indictment both common law and statutory charges.
Description of offence in words of statute or order
48B. In an indictment the description of any offence in the words of the statute or order contravened, or in similar words, shall be sufficient.".'.
No. 87, in page 136, line 38, at end insert—
'. After section 60 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Acts
60A. In any proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Acts it shall not be necessary to produce the official register of the ship referred to in the proceedings in order to prove the nationality of the ship, but the nationality of the ship as stated in the indictment shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed.".'.
No. 138, in page 137, line 12, at end insert—
'. In section 72 (citation of jurors and witnesses) —

(a) the existing provision shall become subsection (1);
(b) in that subsection, after the word "shall" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted ", subject to subsection (2) below,"; and
(c) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(2) A court shall not issue a warrant to apprehend a witness who fails to appear at a diet to which he has been duly cited unless the court is satisfied that the witness received the citation or that its contents came to his knowledge.".'.
No. 88, in page 142, line 7, at end insert—
'. After section 182 there shall be inserted the following—
"Caution
182A. Where a person is convicted of an offence (other than an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law) the court may, instead of or in addition to imposing a fine or a period of imprisonment, ordain the accused to find caution for good behaviour for a period not exceeding 12 months and to such amount as the court considers appropriate.".'.
No. 89, in page 142, line 27, at end insert—
'. In each of sections 196(1) and 402 (fines, etc., may be enforced in another district), the proviso shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 90, in page 144, line 12, after 'etc.)' insert—
'(a) in each of subsections (1) and (2), after the words "section 228(1)(b)" there shall be inserted ", (bb), (be) or (board)"; and
(b)'.
No. 91, in page 144, line 18, at end insert
',(bb), (be) or (board)'.
No. 92, in page 144, line 38, at end insert—
'. In section 269 (extract convictions), after the words "section 228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted ", (bb), (bc), or (board)".'.
No. 35, in page 145, line 5, at end insert—
'. In section 277(2) (non-compliance with certain provisions may be waived), the words "section 236C", "section 237", "section 246", "section 259", "section 272" and "section 273" shall cease to have effect.
. Section 282 (power to make Acts of Adjournal: solemn procedure) shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 163, in page 145, line 20, at end insert—
'. Section 289D (IA)(d) (power to alter sums specified in section 435(e) of that Act) shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 164, in page 145, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
'. In section 300 (appeal in respect of bail)—
(a) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(3A) Where an applicant in an appeal under this section is under 21 years of age, section 329 of this Act shall apply to the High Court or, as the case may be, the Lord Commissioner of Justiciary when disposing of the appeal as it applies to a court when remanding or committing a person of the applicant's age for trial or sentence."; and
(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) the words from ", or where" to "96 hours" shall cease to have effect; and
(ii) for the word "periods" there shall be substituted "period".'.

No. 94, in page 145, line 25, at end insert—
'. For section 305 (intimation to a solicitor) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Right of accused to have access to solicitor

305.—(1) Where any person has been arrested on any criminal charge, such person shall be entitled immediately upon such arrest—

(a) to have intimation sent to a solicitor that his professional assistance is required by such a person and informing him—

(i) of the place where the person is being detained;
(ii) whether the person is to be liberated; and
(iii) if the person is not to be liberated, the date on which he is to be taken to court and the court to which he is to be taken;

(b) to be told what rights there are under paragraph (a) above and subsections (2) and (3) below.

(2) Such solicitor shall be entitled to have a private interview with the person accused before he is examined on declaration, and to be present at such examination.
(3) It shall be in the power of the sheriff or justice to delay such examination for a period not exceeding 48 hours from and after the time of such person's arrest, in order to allow time for the attendance of such solicitor.".'.

No. 95, in page 145, line 29, after 'applications)' insert '(a)'.
No. 96, in page 145, line 30, at end insert; and
(b) after the word "open" there shall be inserted "shut and"!.
No. 38, in page 145, line 32, leave out from '(1),' to '; and' in line 36 and insert
'the words from "in" where it first occurs to the end shall cease to have effect'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 172, in page 145, line 37, leave out 'subsections (4) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (4)'.
The amendment would again ensure the provision of useful information that is to be withdrawn. If the information is withdrawn, the defence cannot advise adequately regarding a plea to be made or a prospective penalty to be imposed. Paragraph 97 of schedule 6 provides, among other things, that section 311 (4) and (5) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 shall cease to have effect.
There is concern about section 311(5) which provides that, where a complaint includes a statutory charge, a notice under the Act has to be served on the accused with a complaint and notice of prior convictions after the charge has been proved and laid before the judge by the prosecutor and entered into the record of the proceedings. That means that the accused will frequently not know of what he has been found guilty. When the accused is telling his lawyer his circumstances, it is extremely useful


to have such notice, and withdrawing it would be detrimental. With that in mind, I seek the Government's views.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The proposal to repeal the requirement to provide notices of penalties in summary cases follows a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Criminal Procedure, chaired by Lord MacLean.
The value of the notices does not justify the considerable resources devoted to preparing and serving them. They are not served in solemn procedure or for common law offences and, as they state only the maximum penalty available, they provide limited guidance to the accused as to the penalty which is likely to be imposed on him.
The requirement to serve a notice of penalty can, in certain cases, lead to the court not being able to sentence the offender if the notice, for some reason, contains an error or has not been properly served. In our view, it is not appropriate that the proper functioning of the court should be disrupted because a minor technical procedure has gone awry.
I understand that incidental use has been made of the notices by sheriffs and justices of the peace as guidance on the maximum penalties available to them in sentencing. We recognise that sentencers need to be fully informed of the penalties available to them. The Scottish Courts Service and the Crown Office are therefore in the process of setting up arrangements for providing the bench with the required information. The Crown Office has agreed to prepare and maintain a manual of statutory offences which will be made available in all courts, including the district courts. It should provide the courts with much more comprehensive and, indeed, appropriate information than a notice of penalties.
With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 39, in page 145, leave out lines 39 and 40.
No. 139, in page 146, line 27, at end insert—
'. In section 320 (apprehension of witness), after the word "may" where it first occurs there shall be inserted ", if it is satisfied that he received the citation or that its contents came to his knowledge,".'.
No. 97, in page 147, line 12, at end insert—
'. Section 345 (administration of oath to same witness in case at same diet) shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 140, in page 148, line 42, at end insert—
'. In section 408 (discharge from imprisonment to be specified), for the words "for payment of a fine or for finding of there shall be substituted "in default of payment of a fine or on failure to find".'.
No. 40, in page 149, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
'. Section 435 (expenses) shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 41, in page 151, line 14, at end insert—
'. Section 457 (power to make Acts of Adjournal: summary procedure) shall cease to have effect.
. Before section 457A there shall be inserted the following section—

"Acts of Adjournal

457ZA.—(1) The High Court may by Act of Adjournal—

(a) regulate the practice and procedure in relation to criminal procedure; and
(b) make such rules and regulations as may be necessary or expedient to carry out the purposes and accomplish the objects of any enactment (including an enactment in this Act) in so far as it relates to criminal procedure,

provided that no rule, regulation or provision which affects the governor or any other officer of a prison shall be made by any such Act of Adjournal except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(2) The High Court may by Act of Adjournal modify, amend or repeal any enactment (including an enactment in this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to matters with respect to which an Act of Adjournal may be made under subsection (1) above.".'.

No. 42, in page 151, leave out lines 29 and 30.
No. 99, in page 151, line 39, at end insert—
'(3) In subsection (6), for the words "Great Britain" there shall be substituted "the United Kingdom".'.
No. 100, in page 151, line 46, at end insert—
'The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 67)
. In section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (unlawful sexual intercourse with girl between 13 and 16)—

(a) in the proviso to subsection (I), the words "on indictment" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(3) For the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) above, a prosecution shall be deemed to commence on the date on which a warrant to apprehend or to cite the accused is granted, if such warrant is executed without undue delay.".'.
No. 101, in page 152, line 18, leave out from beginning to '(service' in line 20 and insert
'In section 26(4) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980'.
No. 141, in page 154, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) In section 11(3)(b) (duration of licence), for the words from "the" in the second place where it occurs to the end there shall be substituted—
there has elapsed—

(i) a period (reckoned from the date on which he was ordered to be returned to prison under or by virtue of subsection (2) (a) of that section) equal in length to the period between the date on which the new offence was committed and the date on which he would (but for his release) have served the original sentence in full; or
(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, a total period equal in length to the period for which he was so ordered to be returned to prison together with, so far as not concurrent with that period, any term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced in respect of the new offence,

whichever results in the later date.
(4) In subsection (3) (b) above, "the original sentence" and "the new offence" have the same meanings as in section 16 of this Act.".
( ) For section 16(7) (application of early release provisions where further offence committed by released prisoner) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(7) Where an order under subsection (2) or (4) above is made in respect of a person released on licence—

(a) the making of the order shall have the effect of revoking the licence; and
(b) if the sentence comprising—

(i) the period for which the person is ordered to be returned to prison; and


(ii) so far as not concurrent with that period, any term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced in respect of the new offence,


is six months or more but less than four years, section 1(1) of this Act shall apply in respect of that sentence as if for the word "unconditionally" there were substituted the words "on licence".".'.
No. 142, in page 155, line 2, at end insert—
'(6) In Schedule 3 (documentary evidence in criminal proceedings), in paragraph 6(4), for the words "after the close of that party's evidence and" there shall be substituted "at any time".'.
No. 43, in page 155, line 45, leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 1 on page 156 and insert
'section 2(9) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994" there shall be substituted the words "by section 2(9) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
No. 44, in page 156, line 4, leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 5 and insert
'section 2(9) of the said Act of 1994" there shall be substituted the words "by section 2(9) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
No. 143, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
'(8) This section extends to Scotland only.'.
No. 102, in page 158, line 40, at end insert—
'(4) In paragraph 19 (enforcement in Scotland of orders made elsewhere in the British Isles)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (5), for the words "and 16" there shall be substituted ", 16 and (subject to sub-paragraph (5A) below) 16A"; and
(b)after sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

(5A) In its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) above paragraph 16A above shall have effect with the following modifications—

(a) for the references to the prosecutor there shall be substituted references to the Lord Advocate; and
(b) for the references to the court there shall be substituted references to the Court of Session.".'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 7

Amendments made: No. 103, in page 159, line 30, column 3, leave out 'Schedule A' and insert 'Section 3'.
No. 45, in page 159, line 37, column 3, leave out 'Schedule 2' and insert
'In Schedule 2, Parts I and III to VI'.
No. 104, in page 161, line 43, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 196(1), the proviso.'.


No. 46, in page 162, line 34, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 277, in subsection (2), the words "section 236C", "section 237", "section 246", "section 259","section 272" and "section 273".Section 282.'.


No. 165, in page 162, line 34, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 289D(IA)(d).'.


No. 47, in page 162, line 53, column 3, leave out 'Section 311' and insert
'In section 311, in subsection (1), the words from "in" where it first occurs to the end; and subsections'.

No. 105, in page 163, line 37, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 345.'.


No. 106, in page 164, line 35, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 402, the proviso.'.


No. 48, in page 164, line 48, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 435.'.


No. 49, in page 165, line 7, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 457.'.


No. 50, in page 165, line 9, column 3, leave out from '(1),' to 'in' in line 14.
No. 107, in page 165, line 20, at end insert—


1976 c.67.
The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976.
'In section 4(1),in the proviso, the words "on indictment".'.


No. 108, in page 165, line 21, leave out 'section 9(3)'.
No. 144, in page 166, line 35, column 3, leave out 'paragraph (b) and,'.
No. 145, in page 167, line 22, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 41(2), the words from the end of paragraph (b) to the end of the subsection.'.


—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Wood.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Bill was brought to the House from another place in February and has since been subjected to intense scrutiny by members of all parties, in Committee and now on Report. We have been able to respond to some of the points that were made.
The Bill will equip the criminal justice system in Scotland to meet the challenges that it faces as we move into the 21st century. It will tighten the operation of bail, ensure the effective use of DNA detection techniques, improve the selection of jurors, streamline appeals procedures and reduce the burden on the Appeal Court. It will significantly reduce needless attendance at court by witnesses and victims of crime, provide fairer treatment for those unfit to face trial because of insanity, extend the scope for the use of fines in appropriate cases, provide a serious alternative to imprisonment for fine default and extend the powers of the courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime.
Those measures will improve the delivery of justice in Scotland. The improvements will be felt throughout the criminal justice system for many years to come. The Bill is wholeheartedly in Scotland's interests, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I should be willing to speak to many issues were time available, but I want especially to raise the issue of those who offend while on bail. The issue arose repeatedly in Committee, and I must admit that I am not convinced that the


Government are taking it sufficiently seriously. I do not think that they realise how, in many working class communities in particular, the credibility of the system is being undermined by what people regard as a revolving door situation.
Very often, young people committing violent assaults are released back into the community almost as soon as they have entered the police station. In some cases, they are perhaps taken to court but are then released on bail without any penalty being imposed on them. That effectively acts as a deterrent to witnesses who might otherwise come forward and it makes people much less likely to report offences to the police, because there is a widely held view that nothing happens as a result of complaints being made. That is enormously dispiriting for police officers who make the time and take the effort to catch youngsters who have perpetrated—in many cases—quite horrific offences against ordinary law-abiding members of the community. I have already raised a couple of incidents in correspondence with the Minister, but it is worth bringing him up to date with the situation in my area.
A gang is active in Govan that has approximately 18 members. Collectively, over an 18-month period, they have been arrested no fewer than 259 times. The vast majority of the gang have not, at the time of speaking, been sentenced by the courts: no penalty has been imposed on them. In those circumstances, it is understandable that there is a widespread view that those youngsters are utterly untouchable.
I wish to make particular reference to one case that has horrified me and many people in the community, about which the Minister has not so far been able to respond. On 11 March, a youngster struck one of my constituents on the hand and head with a machete. My constituent was left with a scalp wound, his hand was badly damaged and there was a danger that his arm would be lost altogether. He had to be taken to hospital for a blood transfusion. The 15-year-old youngster who had committed the offence was caught, taken to court and immediately released back into the community. He was not held for any length of time whatever.
One week later, the same youngster attacked somebody else with a knife, inflicted severe injury and endangered the person's life. Again, knives and weapons were used. That time, the youngster was held for nine days and then released: a youngster charged with two attempted murders was held in custody for nine days before being released. Eventually, on 27 April, that same youngster was involved in another stabbing incident. There is something obviously amiss when a youngster who is clearly violent and prone to attacks with dangerous weapons is released back into the community without any restraint whatever.
I want to draw another point to the Minister's attention. I appreciate that he is busy with other matters, but I would welcome his attention so that he can respond when he replies to the debate.
The Govan fair took place recently. On the Friday evening of the fair, there were battles between two gangs in the Govan area, during which eight people were arrested. The next night, there were further battles, during which six people were arrested. Among those who were arrested were five youngsters who between them had a total of 104 charges pending.
When youngsters who have 104 charges pending—many of them were offences under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980—are released and running about in central Govan with knives machetes and axes, clearly the criminal justice system is not operating correctly. One of those youngsters—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must remind him that the purpose of Third Reading is to debate what is in the Bill. He is describing rather extensive incidents and I do not understand how they relate to Third Reading; perhaps he could enlighten me.

Mr. Davidson: I was trying to clarify how the Minister believed that the provisions in the Bill would deal with the detail of those circumstances. In Committee, the Minister was long on generalities and extremely short on practicalities.
People in my community—and, I am sure, in other communities—want to know how the Bill will deal with such realities. I have not heard the Minister say what differences would apply under his new system. One of the youngsters arrested at the weekend in Govan had already been charged with attempted murder, serious assault, police assault and a series of other attacks with deadly weapons. The Minister has offered no guarantee that the system will change. That is an absolute disgrace. It is obvious that the Government are not prepared to spend the money required to ensure that such youngsters are kept in some form of detention until they can appear in front of a court to be sentenced to a substantial period of incarceration.
The Minister must say how such a system can be allowed to continue and whether he is prepared to issue rules or guidance to procurators fiscal to ensure that a youngster charged on two counts of attempted murder, as in the earlier case which I mentioned, is not released back into the community to become involved in other feuds and disputes. That is clearly outrageous, and it goes to the very heart of the Bill.
The Government have said that they believe that the Bill will improve the operation of justice in Scotland. People in Scotland will believe that justice has improved only when they see action being taken against those in the community who they know are repeated offenders. The existing system does not provide for such action and therefore requires change.

Mr. McFall: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on Third Reading. It is noticeable that all Scottish National party Members have been absent from debate on this Bill from the beginning to the very end. When it comes to detail and examining law and order, they are gone. They are good for quick sound bites and criticism, but nothing else.
Indeed, I well remember that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has Peterhead in his constituency, did not participate in debates on the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill 1993, either. Perhaps, with the new hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), the SNP will take more of an interest in home affairs. It should be playing an active part


in this House on issues such as those addressed in the Bill, because they are of extreme concern to the Scottish people.
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is less to do with criminal justice and more to do with the administration of criminal justice. I look forward to a real criminal justice Act so that we can consider in a coherent fashion the problems facing Scotland. Scores of technical amendments have been moved tonight. That makes for bad law at the end of day. We talked earlier about miscarriages of justice because of the intentions of Parliament. It is hardly welcome having so many amendments thrown at us. The Minister kindly wrote to the Opposition to say that most of the amendments were technical, but in a year or two we may find that they were not merely technical and deserved proper scrutiny. We have not been able to give them our full attention.
The Minister mentioned that the Bill would assist the situation regarding bail bandits—those who continually contravene bail requirements. I see very little in the Bill to do that. Like a number of other hon. Members, I received a letter from the Lord Advocate on 5 June which said that he, like members of the Committee, was concerned about those offending while on bail. In his opinion, the present guidelines do not deal specifically with so-called bail bandits. He said:
The difficulty in dealing with persistent offenders is that most of them are of an age where the imposition of a custodial sentence will almost certainly be viewed by the courts as a last resort. This is relevant to the issue of bail or remand because the courts rightly do not think it appropriate to remand an accused in custody in respect of an offence for which he is unlikely in the end to receive a custodial sentence.
As a result, the Lord Advocate has set up a working party to
look closely at whether a more consistent approach to bail by prosecutors can be achieved.
Like us when we deal at a constituency level with the legal bodies, he knows that the prosecutor's attitude to bail can be crucial. The Lord Advocate's working party is considering
other steps which might be taken to deal more effectively with persistent offenders. For example, it will consider what more can be done to build on the existing practice of bringing outstanding charges in respect of individual persistent offenders together in one complaint or indictment. The longer an accused is on bail awaiting trial, the greater scope there is for him to re-offend while subject to a bail order".
That explains much of what is wrong with our criminal justice system. People brought before the court know that if they plead not guilty it will delay their having to face their responsibilities. That is because of the administration of the court and its efficiency or lack of it. I submit to the Minister that the evidence from practitioners suggests that our courts are not working efficiently. Individuals can plead not guilty, and it may be a year or even two years before they have to face the consequences of their actions. That is no good for the credibility of the legal system, and there is nothing in the Bill to remedy it.
There is a crying need for a more coherent criminal justice Bill, and one that is exclusively Scottish rather than being based on the tail end of legislation that has been passed for England and Wales. I cite the provisions concerning miscarriages of justice and the right of silence, on which the Government arrived late in the day with their consultation paper.
There is a lot to learn, and the Minister is a bit complacent when he talks about less imprisonment for fine default. We are all at one in welcoming what the Government offer here, but where's the beef? What will happen? At the moment 40 per cent. of people admitted to prisons are there for fine defaulting. We all know that that is scandalous, inefficient and not economically viable, but what are we to do about it? More needs to be done; yet there is insufficient provision in the Bill to reassure the Opposition or people outside that anything will be done.
Similarly, the Bill has insufficient provisions for dealing with waiting times at court. Our courts are clogged with witnesses who are there needlessly and with police officers being paid overtime simply to hang about. That problem needs to be attended to. Innovative and radical solutions are required, but the Government have not faced up to the need for them. Yes, the Scottish Office has put out good consultation papers over the past year, but their import has not been translated into practice in the Bill.
I appeal not for the disparate approach that has been adopted hitherto, but for a coherent approach and a dedicated Scottish criminal justice Act to cover not simply the administration of justice but criminal justice itself. We welcome some of the measures that the Government have introduced, but we ask them seriously to consider introducing a coherent criminal justice Act.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that I am not at all surprised by the absence of the Scottish National party Members of Parliament. In my 12 years here, I have noticed that they show a distinct lack of interest in law reform and in the overwhelming need for reform of our criminal procedures.
The Bill is good in parts, but it is deficient in some respects. I tried to intervene when the Minister referred to "meritorious appeals", simply to say that to my lay mind—I am not a lawyer, as the Minister knows—our system of appeals and of protection against miscarriages of justice is much less adequate than the English system. It is no excuse simply to offer to implement the recommendations of a report that will not see the light of day until early summer next year. Those recommendations will not be implemented this side of the general election, which, with all due respect to the Minister, his party will lose.
The Bill is good in parts, but it fails to deal with the interests of vulnerable witnesses. The Minister has a first class record in seeking to protect the interests of child witnesses. Sections 33 and 35 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which I have already mentioned, bear witness to that. The growing number of television installations in our courts also bear witness to the Minister's concern for that aspect of law reform, but he has missed the opportunity offered by the Bill.
For my sins, although I do not know why, I was not selected for the Standing Committee. I would have tabled amendments there to widen the definition of vulnerable witnesses and to give them greater protection. The Minister has done much for child witnesses, but nowhere near enough for those isolated fellow citizens with


learning disabilities who have to come to court and give evidence. They are as vulnerable as young children in sexual abuse or child abuse cases.
I believe that the same is true of complainants in rape cases. Again, I know that the Minister as an individual and as an advocate is sympathetic to the anxieties felt by women in such cases, and since I entered the House dramatic changes have taken place in the conduct of cases involving allegations of rape, especially in cross-examinations.
There have indeed been massive and welcome improvements for such witnesses, but much more needs to be done. The same can be said about miscarriages of justice. So the Bill is good in parts, but a damned sight more needs to be done before we can say that our system is as good as the systems south of the border and elsewhere, especially in the Scandinavian countries.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
Of course I shall study everything that was said by the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). In specific answer to the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) raised on behalf of his constituents, albeit on Third Reading, I am advised that the example involving the "Crossey posse" is still sub judice, so I cannot comment on that.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Bill toughens the arrangements for bail. The procedures are new and in effect allow courts to treat the fact that an offence was committed on bail as a factor to be taken into account in sentencing. The proposal to restrict access to bail is designed to send a signal to all criminals that the right to bail is not to be taken lightly or granted automatically. Where a person has committed a serious crime in the past and served a sentence of imprisonment, and then appears before a court charged with another serious crime, bail should not be an option.
Incidentally, my noble Friend the Minister of State has written to the hon. Gentleman on that subject today, and I have his letter in my hand. The hon. Gentleman may not yet have received it, but he is welcome to my copy at the end of the debate. The letter sets out the fact that the matter is covered in the guidelines issued by the Lord Advocate to procurators fiscal and to prosecutors in Scotland in general. The points that the hon. Gentleman made are being tackled not only by the provisions in the Bill but by the review of the guidelines about which the Lord Advocate has written to the hon. Member for Dumbarton.
As I said in Committee, the problems of bail abuse will be addressed in the review, and the Lord Advocate has made clear that he is updating the guidelines. The working party will complete its review by the end of the summer

with a view to the guidelines being issued in the autumn. It is the Lord Advocate's intention to publish the guidelines and—if the hon. Member for Dumbarton has no objection—I shall send copies of the Lord Advocate's letter which covers that issue to him and to the hon Member for Govan.

Mr. McFall: In reply to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be delighted if the Minister would send a copy—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make another speech, he must do so with the leave of the House. I thought at first that he was intervening on the Minister.

Mr. McFall: I thought that I was intervening, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not clear. Had the Minister completed his speech?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall be happy to give way if that will assist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McFall: I knew that I was right all along. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I shall be delighted if he will send the Lord Advocate's letter to members of the Committee. I ask him to pass on my thanks to the Lord Advocate for such a speedy response to the points raised in Committee.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8693/94 and 8943/94, relating to a strategy to prepare the countries of Central and Eastern Europe for accession to the European Union, and No. 5928/95, relating to industrial co-operation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; and welcomes the agreement of the European Council at Essen to the strategy set out in Annex IV of the Council conclusions.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said draft Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Shalfleet Bridge, Isle of Wight

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Barry Field: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. The first sadness I have is that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has to be detained on the Front Bench throughout the debate. My second sadness is that tonight I will break a rule and a standard that I set myself when I entered the House nearly eight years ago, which was never to use parliamentary privilege. Sadly, despite extensive correspondence between myself and the editor of the island's only newspaper, the Isle of Wight County Press, and between my solicitor and the editor of the newspaper, we have been unable to reach a satisfactory agreement as to the publication of the facts surrounding Shalfleet bridge.
The saga commenced in January of last year when, very unusually, I was asked while travelling to Parliament one dark and stormy night on to the bridge of the Red Jet catamaran which runs from Cowes to Southampton. Captain Jones, the master, who invited me on to the bridge, was a resident of Shalfleet. Sadly, his home had been flooded, and he was very angry.
He told me some home truths about the Shalfleet bridge saga which surprised and startled me. But while I was sympathetic to the plight of him and his family and other flooded home owners, I did not at that time see what I as a Member of Parliament could do to help, especially as the Shalfleet councillor, Steve Cowley, was also deputy leader of the county council. The county council was carrying out the repairs to Shalfleet bridge which caused the problem. Councillor Cowley is also the chairman of Shalfleet parish council.
While I was on the train, something that the captain had said to me kept nagging at the back of my mind, but I just could not put my finger on it. As fate would have it, the same captain was in charge of my return journey. By then, he had taken up some of my suggestions and had sought some independent advice. On Friday 7 January, a story appeared in the Isle of Wight County Press by its reporter George Chestney about the flooding. It was then that the penny finally dropped.
That article, while germane to the sorry tale, was one of the most powerful and descriptive pieces of journalism I have ever read. One could sense the water bursting through the front doors of those poor people. Their homes alongside the bridge had been flooded because props had been placed under the bridge which caused it to act like a dam.
Sadly, the article included two highly suspect pieces of information, which had apparently been taken at face value. One was about a trailer, while the other was a statement from Councillor Cowley about the National Rivers Authority's permission for props under the bridge. The impression given was that a trailer had blocked the bridge and had contributed to the flood. Although I never saw it myself, I was assured that, far from being a large farmyard trailer, it was a small camping trailer of the type towed behind a car. The consensus view in the village was that the trailer was entirely incidental to the flooding, and was a red herring.
Councillor Cowley was quoted in the article as saying:
It is the NRA which is responsible for this stream. The County Council only strengthened the bridge with props after getting the approval of the NRA".
It was then that the penny dropped again. Councillor Cowley is a dairy farmer, and the NRA has a reputation for prosecuting farmers for polluting streams. Councillor Cowley has a real thing about the NRA.

Mr. David Evans: Is Councillor Cowley a Conservative, a socialist or a Liberal?

Mr. Field: He is a Liberal Democrat. He is the deputy leader of what was the Isle of Wight county council and is now the Isle of Wight unitary authority.
As I make it a rule to doubt practically everything I read in the Isle of Wight County Press, I immediately contacted the NRA. I was staggered by its immediate response. I received a copy of a letter dated 8 December that was sent to the county council, in which the NRA said:
The props are without question a potential flood hazard as any rubbish, branches washed down the watercourse, particularly in a flood, could get caught in these, thus effectively forming a dam within the watercourse. A number of dwellings could be at greater risk of flooding.
The letter goes on to say that the responsibility to ensure no blockages take place rests with the county council.
In a letter dated 18 February, the NRA points out to the council that it still has not had a reply to its letter of 8 December. Councillor Cowley told affected home owners a downright lie. He hoodwinked the Isle of Wight County Press and—it appears—the parish council to protect the administration of which he is the deputy leader. It was in fact his responsibility, not that of the NRA.
We were then told by the council that the bridge replacement work could not go ahead, because it had just been listed. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the Isle of Wight planning unit was informed at the beginning of July 1993 by English Heritage that the bridge was in a draft re-survey list to be listed—ten months before any of the work even commenced. That did not stop Councillor Cowley misleading yet again the parish council and the poor people whose homes were flooded. He again hoodwinked the ever-gullible County Press.
On 18 February, it reported:
Mr. Steve Cowley told fellow parish councillors how the county council was finally thwarted in its plans to rebuild the listed stone bridge by an English Heritage official, apparently recommending that the Department of the Environment should not allow demolition.
The article goes on:
Mr. Cowley, also a county councillor, said it could be several months before the Department of the Environment made its decision on demolition.
The plans had not been finally thwarted; the bridge had been listed nearly a month before.
The clerk to Shalfleet parish council, Mrs. Heather Freeman, wrote to me asking me to attend a public meeting of Shalfleet parish council to meet the angry residents of the village. Her letters of 10 February, 10 March, 21 April and 12 May all asked me to attend a meeting to discuss the bridge. Councillor Cowley is the chairman of Shalfleet parish council. Mrs. Freeman insisted in her correspondence that the council requested that I attend the meeting organised by the parish council,


because, at that time, local opinion, with the help of Councillor Cowley, still favoured the view that the blame for the problems with the bridge somehow lay with the Government.
On 20 May, Heather Freeman wrote:
I have now received a letter from Mr. Richardson, the County Surveyor, which seems to indicate that a Public Meeting about Shalfleet Bridge might be rather pointless at the moment.
The letter goes on, inter alia, to say that the council considered that it might be wasting everyone's time to hold a public meeting at that time.
There then appeared a couple of articles in the Isle of Wight County Press, the last of which appeared on 28 October and stated:
Work to strengthen Shalfleet Bridge and the subsequent inconvenience caused when its supporting props were washed away could all have been avoided, it has emerged".
On 11 November, a sad letter from one of the affected residents, Mr. Telford-Bailie, was published in the County Press, pointing out that the press articles were completely untrue, and casting doubt on the council's "consulting engineers", who had to that date remained anonymous. That letter alone should have alerted the editor of the County Press to the cover-up that was taking place over that appalling scandal of lies, deceit and utter incompetence. But nothing was seen or heard by the island's only newspaper.
There are two more pieces of the jigsaw. I spent more than two hours on the telephone to the County Press reporter, George Chastney, during which I unfortunately lost my temper so badly that my secretaries came into my office to see whether I was all right. I had deliberately phoned him on the day that he was due to attend the Shalfleet parish council meeting.
I asked him to put those questions to Councillor Cowley, as he is also a parish councillor. I asked why the paper was refusing to investigate the serious allegations by the National Rivers Authority against the council. I demanded to know why the paper was not championing the cause of the householders whose homes had been wrecked. I asked him why the newspaper was letting the councillors and the council off the hook.
His reply was:
I haven't been asked to write that story.
At that point, I exploded in a fit of rage. I am sure that the House would like to know that George Chastney was subsequently employed by the Isle of Wight county council as its public relations officer, a post which he still holds.
What about the people who had had more than 5 ft of water through their homes, some of whom were not adequately insured? Everyone—the island's newspaper; the county council; the parish council; and Councillor Cowley—wanted it all hushed up and swept under the carpet. They were happy to blame the NRA, the Government and the Department of National Heritage. It is nothing short of scandalous.
There is one other salient part of the jigsaw. The county council is the largest single client of the Isle of Wight County Press for advertising and circulars, apart from housing advertisements. When the newspaper built its new offices in Pyle street, it was left with its old premises because of the property slump. Who should come along

to rent the old premises? Yes, Minister, you have guessed it: the county council. The newspaper's financial accounts at that time were beginning to look a little rocky until the council, with the people's cheque book, bailed it out by agreeing to rent its old property.
If, when my constituents read this debate, they still doubt my allegations about the County Press and its inability to defend the interests of its island readers and the duplicity of Councillor Cowley, who forgot the fundamental rule which every elected representative should never forget—to defend the people, not the system; he put politics before the people—they should compare for a moment the zeal with which the newspaper reported an anonymous letter from St Mary's Hospital, freemasonry, and Southern Water's lack of action in Ventnor.
With the exception of the sad death of a good friend as a result of the space given to that anonymous letter and the reporting that followed it, none of those issues could be compared to 5 ft of water pouring through people's homes because of the incompetence of the council, which Councillor Cowley perjured himself, not once but twice, to protect.
To those who will no doubt try to say that this debate is just a political exercise on my part, may I say that Councillor Barton, the Liberal leader of the council, would never have allowed the people of his ward or division to suffer in that way. He would have had the officers' guts for garters. This debate is not about my desire to see officers of the council hanging by their braces from a lamp post in Newport square with placards round their necks saying "guilty". It is about the four pillars of a free and democratic community: first, the Member of Parliament; secondly, the local council; thirdly, the parish council; and fourthly, the press.
Taking them each in turn, I am ashamed to say that my initial reaction was that I could not see how the matter involved Parliament. Secondly, the council's incompetence was compounded by ineptitude, and excused and obscured by Councillor Cowley's downright lies. To be charitable, the first lie might have been told in the heat of the moment but, by the second, he must have known the true position.
Thirdly, the parish council was full of vim and vigour while it thought that it was the Government's fault, but boy was the matter dropped like a hot potato once it knew that it was the island's fault. Fourthly, the editor of the newspaper has accused me up hill and down dale. If he put as much enthusiasm into guarding the interests of his readers as he has into avoiding publishing the facts and trying to denigrate me personally, the function of the public administration on the Isle of Wight would be much better.
One can choose any criterion to compare how the island's newspaper discharges its function of being a fearless exposer of the truth. Not a single fact has come to light about masonic influence on the decision-making process of the island's local authority. Nevertheless, acres of space in the newspaper have been devoted to freemasonry.
Numerous column inches have been given over to the prosecution of offences between homosexuals and the slightest problem with one of the privatised utilities, the health service or social security agencies. The list is


endless. All those matters have been pursued with a zeal that has sometimes bordered on religious fervour, with the notable exception of the island's local government.
I have alluded to the extraordinarily cosy relationship between the council and the Isle of Wight County Press, which is unhealthy and does not serve the interests of the whole island. The excuse is often given that those problems are political. The editor even said as much in this case. What, I ask the House, can possibly be political about 5 ft of water pouring through people's homes and wrecking them? It has to be pure, unalloyed bunkum.
In a debate on the Adjournment of the House, I congratulated Councillor Maureen Stalworthy on becoming the first chairman of the new unitary island council. She is a lady of principles, and has a firm sense of proprietary behaviour. She will shape the island's council, but I reiterate the opinion that the lack of a chief executive is unhelpful in a small community such as the Isle of Wight.
I have been surprised by the number of Liberals—councillors and others—who have expressed their private anxieties to me about the conduct of local government, and that rather paranoid approach to an alternative point of view, and the total cop-out, "Oh, it's political." The clerk of Shalfleet parish council, Mrs. Heather Freeman, encapsulated the anxieties nicely when she said, in her fragrant way, that she thought that the local community would be taken aback by what had happened:
It is all a little surprising, but it is good news in a way because the scheme will be more straightforward, less expensive and will maintain the integrity of what is now a listed building.
Mrs. Freeman is the wife of the managing director of the Isle of Wight County Press, as well as clerk of the Shalfleet parish council.
I said at the beginning of the debate that I had three sadnesses. They were, first, that I was detaining my hon. Friend, when obviously his officials in the Department of National Heritage, the National Rivers Authority and the Department of the Environment have discharged their duties fairly and correctly in the sad saga of Shalfleet bridge. The second sadness was the fact that I had been placed in a position in which I have had to use parliamentary privilege rather than set those matters aright in our own community on the island. My final sadness is that we have a saying on the Isle of Wight, "If you kick one islander, they all limp." The real loser in this sorry saga has been the island itself.
In every company of which I have been a director, all the shareholders have always had an excellent deal. As a director of a building society, the depositors expected from me a high standard of financial probity. As long as I am the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight, it will be my aim to ensure that the highest standards of administration pertain throughout the island. In the saga of events that led to the flooding of those people's homes beside the Shalfleet bridge, they have not. That reflects badly on us all—on myself, the councils, the councillors and the press.
It is my earnest hope that the debate will be—no pun intended—a watershed, and that we shall never forget that we all have a duty of responsibility to the people who elect us, not to one party or another, and certainly a duty not to defend the indefensible when an administrative cock-up occurs. That must surely include and involve the island's only newspaper.
I chose, of all the aspects that I might have chosen to highlight in the debate tonight, the listing of the Shalfleet bridge, because the Department of National Heritage is responsible for that matter and for the media. Although I vehemently oppose any control of freedom of the press, it is obvious that the Isle of Wight County Press must pull its socks up considerably and defend the interests of all its readers much more rigorously.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has made an important and powerful speech this evening, and I congratulate him on the courage and dignity that he has shown in bringing that matter before Parliament. As he rightly said, my Department is concerned with but a small part of the sorry saga that he related tonight, although it is indeed responsible for the press.
I propose to set out in some detail what my Department did about the bridge and its listing, so that my hon. Friend may know exactly what the facts are, as I believe them to be from the point of view of my Department, and so that he has on the record exactly what happened, with accuracy and with truth, at least in the part of the tale that he has unfolded this evening. It may be helpful if, first, I explain, from the point of view of my Department, the circumstances leading to the listing of the bridge.
Following a review of buildings on the Isle of Wight, English Heritage had submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage a draft revised list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest for the island, which it recommended for listing. The Shalfleet bridge was one of the structures included in the list for the first time.
That list was under consideration in my Department when, in view of an application for planning permission before the local planning authority for the demolition and rebuilding of the bridge, we were asked by the Isle of Wight joint planning technical unit on 20 January 1994 for an immediate decision on whether it was to be listed. Accordingly, the bridge was listed on that day, my right hon. Friend having carefully considered the advice from English Heritage that it met the listing criteria.
In considering whether to add a building to the statutory list, the only factor that the law allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take into account is whether it possesses special architectural or historic interest. The law does not allow him to consider other factors, such as the building's state of repair—unless it has harmed its architectural interest—its maintenance costs or its unsuitability for modern needs.
Such matters are not relevant to a listing decision. However, they can properly be taken into account in the context of any subsequent application for listed building consent for works connected with the demolition, alteration or extension of a building.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that a building meets the listing criteria, the law does not allow him any option other than to list it. Once a building is listed, works to it are subject to control under the "listed building consent" procedures, which are operated, in the first instance, by the local planning authority.
Listed building consent is required for the demolition of a listed building, or any other alteration or extension that affects its character as a listed building. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment where consent is refused. Where the local authority itself wishes to carry out works to a listed building, as was the case with Shalfleet bridge, it must obtain consent from the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Although listing creates a presumption in favour of preservation, it does not necessarily mean that the building or structure concerned must remain intact for all time. Indeed, we fully acknowledge that, in many cases, some change may be essential to ensure that a listed building remains in active use. The main purpose of listing is to register the special interest of a building, in order that that can be weighed against arguments in favour of its demolition, alteration or extension, if and when an application for listed building consent is made.
It is entirely logical that the listing process should confine itself to the consideration of the merits of a building, while the listed building control, which can take into account wider issues, comes into play only when there are proposals that will affect the special character of a listed building.
I appreciate that the requirement to obtain listed building consent can cause delay in the implementation of some important proposals. Indeed, I fully acknowledge that the listing of Shalfleet bridge delayed implementation of the solution to the problem of the bridge strengthening. However, it is entirely justifiable that there should be an opportunity to take stock and consider, with considerable care, whether there are ways of achieving the required objectives which are compatible with preserving the special interest of our historic buildings and structures.
Broadly speaking, we believe that time has shown that the present system provides the right framework for identifying buildings that are worthy of preservation, within which proposals to alter or demolish them can be fully assessed and all relevant factors taken into account. After all, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree, without the listings, many of our finest buildings might not have survived to this day.
It is indeed unfortunate that the repair work to Shalfleet bridge was delayed, but it appears that a permanent solution has now been implemented, which meets the concerns of all interested parties.

Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend shares the surprise that those poor villagers had—and that I had when I inquired into the matter—that it now appears that the demolition of the bridge was never necessary in the first place. The props that were put under it, which caused it to dam up, were drawn to the attention of the council by the National Rivers Authority as being extremely dangerous. It is a saga that never needed to happen. The bridge has been adequately reinforced and strengthened for the traffic it takes, and will be a memorial there for ever, as a very pretty piece of architecture on the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is certainly right—the bridge need not be demolished. It was decided not to demolish it; it was decided to strengthen it. I understand that the strengthening of the bridge, which has now taken place, is cheaper than the estimate for the rebuilding of the bridge.
With those few words about one small aspect of my hon. Friend's important speech, I leave him to take the matter forward with all the dedication to justice that he has shown.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Eight o'clock.